TAMPA ELECTRIC: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set for Dec.TENET HEALTHCARE: Sued Over False Medicaid Program CertificationTEVA PHARMACEUTICALS: Union Alleges Conspiracy Over PravastatinTRACFONE WIRELESS: City of Pickering to Take Part in Class ActionTRUEBLUE INC: Settles Class Action for $5MM, Feb. 6 Hearing Set

ACCURIDE CORP: 5 Class Suits Challenge Crestview Deal-----------------------------------------------------Accuride Corporation is facing five class action lawsuits infederal and state courts in Indiana challenging a proposed mergerdeal with Crestview Partners, according to its November 8, 2016,Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of September 2, 2016,by and among the Company, Armor Parent Corp. and Armor Merger SubCorp., provides for the merger of Armor Merger Sub Corp. with andinto the Company, with the Company surviving as a wholly ownedsubsidiary of Armor Parent Corp.

Among other things, the Company supplemented the disclosure underthe heading "Background of the Merger" by stating that on June 13,2016, the Board authorized the formation of an "ad hoc"transaction committee of the Board (the "Ad Hoc TransactionCommittee") for administrative convenience and efficiency in lightof the expectation that the significant level of activityfollowing the submission of Crestview's indication of interestwould increase after the approval of the exclusivity agreementwith Crestview. Messrs. Risner, Davis and Adams were appointed tothe Ad Hoc Transaction Committee due to, among other things, theirknowledge of Accuride as a result of their service as the Chairmanof the Board of Directors, Chairman of the Compensation Committeeand Chairman of the Audit Committee, respectively, and theirextensive executive and financial leadership experience. A copyof the supplemental information is available athttps://is.gd/9Z3jU8

As previously disclosed on the definitive proxy statement filed bythe Company with the SEC on October 17, 2016, in connection withthe proposed transaction and on the Company's Quarterly Report onForm 10-Q filed with the SEC on November 1, 2016, five putativeclass action complaints have been filed in connection with theproposed transaction. Three of these complaints were filed instate courts in the State of Indiana, County of Vanderburgh: (i)Alexander v. Accuride Corp., et al., filed on September 14, 2016in Vanderburgh Superior Court; (ii) Raul v. Adams, et al., filedon September 20, 2016 in Vanderburgh Circuit Court; and (iii)Rosenfeld v. Accuride Corp., et al., filed on October 18, 2016 inVanderburgh Superior Court (collectively, the "State Actions").Two of these complaints were filed in the United States DistrictCourt for the Southern District of Indiana: (i) Jones v. AccurideCorp., et al., filed on October 20, 2016 and (ii) Suokko v.Accuride Corp., et al., filed on October 24, 2016 (together, the"Federal Actions" and together with the State Actions, the"Actions").

The Actions allege, among other things, that the members of theCompany's board of directors breached their fiduciary duties inagreeing to the proposed transaction for inadequate considerationand failing to disclose purportedly material information tostockholders in connection with the proposed transaction, thatcertain provisions in the Merger Agreement relating to theproposed transaction unfairly deter a potential alternativetransaction and that the Company and its board of directorsviolated various federal securities laws in failing to disclosepurportedly material information to stockholders in connectionwith the proposed transaction.

The Company says the defendants named in the Actions deny allliability with respect to the facts and claims alleged in theActions and specifically deny that any breach of fiduciary dutyoccurred, or that any further disclosure is required to supplementthe Definitive Proxy Statement under any applicable rule, statute,regulation or law. Nonetheless, the Company has determined tosupplement the Definitive Proxy Statement with the disclosures setforth below. In making these supplemental disclosures, the Companyand its board of directors do not in any way admit the factual orlegal allegations in the Actions and further reserve all of theirrights and defenses with respect thereto.

* * *

Accuride on Nov. 18 announced the completion of its acquisition byfunds managed by Crestview Partners, a New York based privateequity firm, pursuant to the merger agreement it announced onSept. 2. Accuride's shareholders adopted the merger agreement atthe Company's Special Meeting of Shareholders held on Nov. 15.

ALBANY MOLECULAR: Settlement Reached in "Gauquie" Suit------------------------------------------------------The parties in the case, Gauquie v. Albany Molecular Research,Inc. et al., 1:14-cv-06637 (E.D.N.Y.) have reached a proposedsettlement and on Dec. 16, Judge Frederic Block held that basedupon Plaintiff's letter application filed that day, the Court willrefrain from ruling on defendant's pending motion forreconsideration. The Court held that by February 10, 2017 theparties shall file either their stipulation of settlement or astatus report letter as to their settlement. Any application withrespect to their discovery schedule or the January 12, 2017conference should be addressed to MJ Gold.

Albany Molecular Research, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016,for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that onNovember 12, 2014, a purported class action lawsuit, John Gauquiev. Albany Molecular Research, Inc., et al., No. 14-cv-6637, wasfiled against the Company and certain of its current and formerofficers in the United States District Court for the EasternDistrict of New York. An amended complaint was filed on March 31,2015. The amended complaint alleges claims under the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934 arising from the Company's alleged failure todisclose in its August 5, 2014 announcement of its financialresults for the second quarter of 2014 that one of themanufacturing facilities experienced a power interruption in July2014. The amended complaint alleges that the price of theCompany's stock was artificially inflated between August 5, 2014and November 5, 2014, and seeks unspecified monetary damages andattorneys' fees and costs.

The defendants submitted on July 29, 2015 a motion to dismiss leadplaintiffs' amended complaint. Lead plaintiffs submitted anopposition on October 7, 2015, and defendants submitted a reply onNovember 20, 2015.

On July 26, 2016, the court denied the defendants motion todismiss. The Company filed a motion to reconsider its July 29,2015 motion to dismiss lead plaintiff's amended complaint.

AMERICAN EQUITY: Cuts Litigation Liability by $6.4 Million----------------------------------------------------------American Equity Investment Life Holding Company said in its Form10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission onNovember 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30,2016, that during the three months ended September 30, 2016, theCompany reduced the litigation liability related to the case,American Equity Annuity Practices and Sales Litigation, by $6.4million.

The Company said, "Companies in the life insurance and annuitybusiness have faced litigation, including class action lawsuits,alleging improper product design, improper sales practices andsimilar claims. We were a defendant in a purported class action,McCormack, et al. v. American Equity Investment Life InsuranceCompany, et al., in the United States District Court for theCentral District of California, Western Division and Anagnostis v.American Equity, et al., coordinated in the Central District,entitled, In Re: American Equity Annuity Practices and SalesLitigation (complaint filed September 7, 2005) (the "Los AngelesCase"), involving allegations of improper sales practices andsimilar claims."

"The Los Angeles Case was a consolidated action involving severallawsuits filed by putative class members seeking class actionstatus for a national class of purchasers of annuities issued byus. On July 30, 2013, the parties entered into a settlementagreement and stipulated to certification of the case as a classaction for settlement purposes only. A class member filed anappeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the NinthCircuit on February 28, 2014. On February 17, 2016, the UnitedStates Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the termsof the settlement agreement and on April 6, 2016, the classmember's subsequent request for a rehearing en banc was denied.All remaining opportunities for appeal have passed.

"During the three months ended September 30, 2016, we reduced thelitigation liability related to the Los Angeles Case by $6.4million as we paid out $1.8 million in partial settlement,reclassified $1.8 million from the litigation liability to policybenefit reserves and other policy funds and contract claims andreleased $2.8 million of the litigation liability as additionalinformation became available concerning the nature and magnitudeof claims based on the terms of the settlement. After thisactivity, we estimate our litigation liability in this matter tobe $4.7 million based on our best estimate of probable loss. Therecan be no assurance that any other pending or future litigationwill not have a material adverse effect on our business, financialcondition, or results of operations.

"In addition to our commitments to fund mortgage loans, we haveunfunded commitments at September 30, 2016 to limited partnershipsof $58.8 million and to secured bank loans of $35.3 million."

American Equity specializes in the sale of individual annuities(primarily deferred annuities) and, to a lesser extent, it alsosells life insurance policies.

AMERICARE CERTIFIED: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, Suit Claims-----------------------------------------------------------------Khalima Nix Dekhkanova, Klara Barnard, Navruza Z. Khalilova,individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.Americare Certified Special Services Inc., and Americare, Inc.,Case No. 522052/2016 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., December 12, 2016), isbrought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wagesfor work in excess of 40 hours in a work week.

The Defendants own and operate a company that provides home careservices.

ARENA PHARMACEUTICALS: Still Defends Suit Over BELVIQ Program-------------------------------------------------------------Arena Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016,for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that theCompany continues to defend against a class action related to itsBELVIQ program.

The Company said, "Beginning on September 20, 2010, a number ofcomplaints were filed in the US District Court for the SouthernDistrict of California against us and certain of our current andformer employees and directors on behalf of certain purchasers ofour common stock. The complaints were brought as purportedstockholder class actions, and, in general, include allegationsthat we and certain of our current and former employees anddirectors violated federal securities laws by making materiallyfalse and misleading statements regarding our BELVIQ program,thereby artificially inflating the price of our common stock. Theplaintiffs sought unspecified monetary damages and other relief."

"On August 8, 2011, the Court consolidated the actions andappointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel. On November 1, 2011,the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint. OnMarch 28, 2013, the Court dismissed the consolidated amendedcomplaint without prejudice.

"On May 13, 2013, the lead plaintiff filed a second consolidatedamended complaint. On November 5, 2013, the Court dismissed thesecond consolidated amended complaint without prejudice as to allparties except for Robert E. Hoffman, who was dismissed from theaction with prejudice.

"On November 27, 2013, the lead plaintiff filed a motion for leaveto amend the second consolidated amended complaint. On March 20,2014, the Court denied plaintiff's motion and dismissed the secondconsolidated amended complaint with prejudice.

"On April 18, 2014, the lead plaintiff filed a notice of appeal,and on August 27, 2014, the lead plaintiff filed his appellatebrief in the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On October24, 2014, we filed our answering brief in response to the leadplaintiff's appeal. On December 5, 2014, the lead plaintiff filedhis reply brief.

"A panel of the Ninth Circuit heard oral argument on the appeal onMay 4, 2016. On October 26, 2016, the Ninth Circuit panel reversedthe district court's dismissal of the second consolidated amendedcomplaint and remanded the case back to the district court forfurther proceedings.

"Due to the stage of these proceedings, we are not able to predictor reasonably estimate the ultimate outcome or possible lossesrelating to these claims."

AUTOZONE: Recent Class Action Similar to Frequent Flyer Suits-------------------------------------------------------------Robert Lawson, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that aMinnesota attorney from Kennedy & Kennedy law firm says a recentlawsuit filed against AutoZone over its customer loyalty rewardprogram is similar to those that were filed against airlines infrequent flyer miles disputes.

Mary Ruth Hughes and Kevin Shenkman filed the class actioncomplaint in Superior Court of the State of California againstAutoZone, alleging breach of contract, fraud and negligentmisrepresentation. The defendant subsequently removed the lawsuitto U.S. District Court for the Central District of California onOct. 27.

The complaint stated that Ms. Hughes and Mr. Shenkman sufferedmonetary damages as a result of AutoZone's allegedly misleadingrewards program. The plaintiffs said AutoZone changed expirationdates of credits built up by their customers.

Chris Kennedy, managing partner at Kennedy & Kennedy, often speakson legal matters with the media in Minnesota. He spoke on thestrength of the case in the class action suit brought forth by theplaintiffs in California.

"The defendant likely never fully explained that the program couldgo away or be limited in certain instances or it made it difficultfor the consumer to know. Like with frequent flyer programs,people didn't realize there were blackout dates.

"Large companies are usually good at putting out disclaimers, justnot always in a manner that anybody looks at."

Why would a company change its expiration dates on credits forrewards? Mr. Kennedy had a simple answer.

"Profit," Mr. Kennedy said. "If by changing the dates, they mayreduce liabilities, or in some way they can increase what is intheir balance sheets, then there is a motive to do it."

Mr. Kennedy continued to compare the suit to frequent flyer mileprogram lawsuits against the airlines in recent decades. He alsomentioned how other types of promotions from companies have led toclass action suits under similar pretenses.

"There were several regarding frequent flyer mile programs,"Mr. Kennedy said. "In the past four or five years, there havebeen lawsuits brought forth regarding gift cards."

Hughes and Shenkman sought trial by jury, compensatory and generaldamages, interest, an order for the defendant to make a payment toa cy pres fund, court costs and any further relief the courtgrants. They are represented by attorneys Todd W. Bonder and RyanM. Lapine -- rlapine@rmslaw.com -- of Rosenfeld, Meyer & SusmanLLP in Beverly Hills, California, and by Seth Yohalem of WaskowskiJohnson Yohalem LLP in Chicago.

BBX CAPITAL: Second Suit Challenging Merger With BFC Dismissed--------------------------------------------------------------BBX Capital Corporation said in its Form 10-Q filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2016, for thequarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that a second lawsuitchallenging its merger with BFC Financial Corporation wasdismissed with prejudice.

BBX Capital entered into a definitive merger agreement with BFCFinancial Corporation and BBX Merger Subsidiary LLC, a newlyformed wholly owned subsidiary of BFC ("Merger Sub") on July 27,2016 and amended on October 20, 2016. The Merger Agreementprovides for BBX Capital Corporation to merge with and into MergerSub (the "Merger"), with Merger Sub continuing as the survivingcompany of the Merger and a wholly owned subsidiary of BFC.

On August 10, 2016, Shiva Stein filed a lawsuit against BFC,Merger Sub, BBX Capital and the members of BBX Capital's board ofdirectors, which seeks to establish a class of BBX Capital'sshareholders and challenges the currently proposed Merger pursuantto which BBX Capital would merge with and into a wholly-ownedsubsidiary of BFC. This action, styled Shiva Stein, on behalf ofherself and all others similarly situated, v. BBX Capital Corp.,John E. Abdo, Norman H. Becker, Steven M. Coldren, Willis N.Holcombe, Jarett S. Levan, Anthony P. Segreto, Charlie C.Winningham, II, BFC Financial Corporation and BBX MergerSubsidiary LLC, Case No. CACE16014713, was filed in the CircuitCourt of the 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County,Florida. The plaintiff asserts that the proposed Mergerconsideration undervalues BBX Capital and is unfair to BBXCapital's public shareholders, that the sales process was unfairand that BBX Capital's directors breached their fiduciary dutiesof care, loyalty and candor owed to the public shareholders of BBXCapital because, among other reasons, they failed to take steps tomaximize the value of BBX Capital to its public shareholders andinstead diverted consideration to themselves. The lawsuit alsoalleges that BFC, as the controlling shareholder of BBX Capital,breached its fiduciary duties of care, loyalty and candor owed tothe public shareholders of BBX Capital by utilizing confidential,non-public information to formulate the Merger consideration andnot acting in the best interests of BBX Capital's publicshareholders. In addition, the lawsuit includes a cause of actionagainst BBX Capital, BFC and Merger Sub for aiding and abettingthe alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. The lawsuit requeststhat the court grant an injunction blocking the proposed Mergeror, if the proposed Merger is completed, rescind the transactionor award damages as determined by the court.

BFC and BBX Capital believe that the lawsuit is without merit andintend to vigorously defend the action.

A second lawsuit which sought to challenge the merger and includedmany of the same claims as set forth in the Stein action was filedin the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit in and forBroward County, Florida during September 2016. This lawsuit wasdismissed with prejudice during October 2016.

BBX Capital and BFC have also received threats of additionallitigation relating to the proposed Merger.

BBX Capital Corporation is a Florida-based company involved in theacquisition, development, ownership and management of andinvestments in real estate and real estate development projects aswell as operating businesses. Prior to the sale of BankAtlanticto BB&T Corporation on July 31, 2012, BBX Capital Corporation wasa bank holding company and its principal asset was the ownershipof BankAtlantic. The principal assets of BBX Capital currentlyconsist of its 46% equity interest in Woodbridge Holdings, LLC,investments in real estate joint ventures and operatingbusinesses, and legacy loans and real estate assets transferred toBBX Capital in connection with the sale of BankAtlantic.

On December 21, 2012, plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint in anexisting purported class action filed in Federal District Court inNew Jersey adding BBX Capital and Fidelity Tax, LLC, a whollyowned subsidiary of CAM, among others as defendants. The classaction complaint is brought on behalf of a class defined as "allpersons who owned real property in the State of New Jersey and whohad a Tax Certificate issued with respect to their property thatwas purchased by a Defendant during the Class Period at a publicauction in the State of New Jersey at an interest rate above 0%."Plaintiffs alleged that beginning in January 1998 and at leastthrough February 2009, the Defendants were part of a statewideconspiracy to manipulate interest rates associated with taxcertificates sold at public auction from at least January 1, 1998,through February 28, 2009. During this period, Fidelity Tax was asubsidiary of BankAtlantic. Fidelity Tax was contributed to CAMin connection with the sale of BankAtlantic in the BB&TTransaction. BBX Capital and Fidelity Tax filed a Motion toDismiss in March 2013 and on October 23, 2013, the Court grantedthe Motion to Dismiss and dismissed the Amended Complaint withprejudice as to certain claims, but without prejudice as toplaintiffs' main antitrust claim.

BBX Capital reached an agreement to settle the action for $400,000and the court approved the settlement in September 2016.

BBX Capital Corporation is a Florida-based company involved in theacquisition, development, ownership and management of andinvestments in real estate and real estate development projects aswell as operating businesses. Prior to the sale of BankAtlanticto BB&T Corporation on July 31, 2012, BBX Capital Corporation wasa bank holding company and its principal asset was the ownershipof BankAtlantic. The principal assets of BBX Capital currentlyconsist of its 46% equity interest in Woodbridge Holdings, LLC,investments in real estate joint ventures and operatingbusinesses, and legacy loans and real estate assets transferred toBBX Capital in connection with the sale of BankAtlantic.

B/E AEROSPACE: Faces "Klein" Suit in Del. Over Sale to Rockwell---------------------------------------------------------------Sharon Klein, individually and on behalf of all others similarlysituated v. B/E Aerospace, Inc., Amin J. Khoury, James F. Albaugh,David J. Anderson, Richard G. Hamermesh, Werner Lieberherr,Jonathan M. Schofield, Mary M. Vandeweghe, and John T. Whates,Case No. 12969 (Del. Ch. Ct., December 8, 2016), is brought onbehalf of all public minority stockholders of B/E Aerospace, Inc.who have been harmed as a result of breaches of fiduciary duty bythe B/E Aerospace Board of Directors in approving the sale of theCompany to Rockwell Collins, Inc., for $34.10 per share in cashand $27.90 in shares of Rockwell Collins common stock, subject toa 7.5% collar.

B/E Aerospace, Inc. is a manufacturer of aircraft cabin interiorproducts.

BIOLASE INC: Defends "Shulruff" Class Suit in N.D. Illinois-----------------------------------------------------------BIOLASE, Inc., is defending itself against a putative class actionlawsuit commenced by Dr. Charles Shulruff in Illinois, the Companysaid in its Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on November 8, 2016, for the quarterly period endedSeptember 30, 2016.

On February 24, 2016, a purported class action lawsuit entitledDr. Charles Shulruff v. Biolase, Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-02533, wasfiled in the United States District Court for the NorthernDistrict of Illinois. The case alleges that the Company violatedthe federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and otherrelated Illinois state statutes, by sending unsolicited marketingcommunications via fax machine to a Chicago dentist, Dr. Shulruff.The plaintiff and his counsel seek to certify a nation-wide classof comprised of other dentists who received the same or similarfaxes from BIOLASE. BIOLASE responded to the case on April 14,2016 and denied liability on all claims. BIOLASE also denies thatclass certification is appropriate.

The Company says the case is in the early stages of discovery andno substantive motion practice has been conducted by either sideat this time.

BIOLASE, Inc., is a medical device company that develops,manufactures, markets, and sells laser systems in dentistry andmedicine and also markets, sells, and distributes dental imagingequipment, including cone beam digital x-rays and CAD/CAM intra-oral scanners, in-office, and chair-side milling machines.

Brocade Communications Systems, Inc. is a supplier of networkinghardware, software, and services, including Storage AreaNetworking solutions and Internet Protocol Networking solutions,for businesses and organizations of various types and sizes.

Broadcom Limited and Broadcom Corporation operate a fablesssemiconductor company that makes products for the wireless andbroadband communication industry.

BROTHERHOOD TRUCKING: Sued Over Failure to Provide Meal Break-------------------------------------------------------------All Well Benson, individually, on behalf of all others similarlysituated, and as representatives of other aggrieved employees v.Brotherhood Trucking, Inc. and Does 1 through 250, inclusive, CaseNo. BC42865 (Cal. Super. Ct., December 8, 2016), is broughtagainst the Defendants for failure to provide meal and rest periodin violation of the California Labor Code.

Brotherhood Trucking, Inc. owns and operates a company thattransports containers in southern California.

CANADA: Sixties Scoop Lawyer Questions PM's Reconciliation Move---------------------------------------------------------------Jody Porter, writing for CBC News, reports that the PrimeMinister's commitment to reconciliation is put in question byCanada's choice of lawyers for the Sixties Scoop class action,according to a former band councillor from KitchenuhmaykoosibInninuwug (K.I.) in northern Ontario.

John Cutfeet was among the leaders from his First Nation who wereembroiled in a mining dispute back in 2008. That's when OwenYoung, then a prosecutor for Ontario, encouraged the judge toimpose "a financial penalty that hurts" on the community to avoidleaders becoming martyrs by going to jail for their cause.

Now, Mr. Young is the lawyer defending Canada in a class actionsuit on the Sixties Scoop.

The wounds from Mr. Young's arguments in court in 2008 are stillfresh in Mr. Cutfeet's mind.

"He was trying to promote the agenda that Indigenous rights didnot exist," Mr. Cutfeet said. Six K.I. leaders did serve time injail for their resistance to mineral exploration on theirtraditional lands.

Now, Mr. Cutfeet is questioning Canada's use of Young in theSixties Scoop litigation.

"It certainly doesn't contribute to a good relationship or a newrelationship with our people when you have [lawyers] out therethinking back to old colonial thinking," he said.

Mr. Young argued in court that the concept of Indigenous cultureis too nebulous to require a legal obligation on Canada to protectit when Indigenous children were apprehended and placed with non-Indigenous families.

"You begin to see what [Trudeau's] 'sunny ways' really mean whenyou have someone who totally wants to disregard Aboriginalculture, representing the government, especially against children,children who were stolen from their families,"Mr. Cutfeet said of Young's remarks.

Mr. Cutfeet said he understands the adversarial role that lawyersare put in through the court system and said that means theLiberal's must re-think both their choice of lawyers and whichcases to fight, if they're honest in their desire forreconciliation.

"There was a lot of hope generated by [Trudeau saying] 'sunnyways, my friends', but these sort of actions point to the darkerera that we've just come through," he said.

CAPSTONE TURBINE: Still Defending Securities Suit in C.D. Calif.----------------------------------------------------------------Capstone Turbine Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016,for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that theCompany continues to defend against the consolidated amendedcomplaint in the federal securities class action.

Two putative securities class action complaints were filed againstthe Company and certain of its current and former officers in theUnited States District Court for the Central District ofCalifornia under the following captions: David Kinney, etc. v.Capstone Turbine, et al., No. 2:15-CV-08914 on November 16, 2015(the "Kinney Complaint") and Kevin M. Grooms, etc. v. CapstoneTurbine, et al., No. 2:15-CV-09155 on December 18, 2015 (the"Grooms Complaint").

The putative class in the Kinney Complaint is comprised of allpurchasers of the Company's securities between November 7, 2013and November 5, 2015. The Kinney Complaint alleges materialmisrepresentations and omissions in public statements regardingBPC and the likelihood that BPC would not be able to fulfill manylegal and financial obligations to the Company. The KinneyComplaint also alleges that the Company's financial statementswere not appropriately adjusted in light of this situation andwere not maintained in accordance with GAAP, and that the Companylacked adequate internal controls over accounting. The KinneyComplaint alleges that these public statements and accountingirregularities constituted violations by all named defendants ofSection 10(b) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, aswell as violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by theindividual defendants.

The Grooms Complaint makes allegations and claims that aresubstantially identical to those in the Kinney Complaint, and bothcomplaints seek compensatory damages of an undisclosed amount.

On January 16, 2016, several shareholders filed motions toconsolidate the Kinney and Grooms actions and for appointment aslead plaintiff. On February 29, 2016, the Court granted themotions to consolidate, and appointed a lead plaintiff.

On May 6, 2016, a Consolidated Amended Complaint with allegationsand claims substantially identical to those of the KinneyComplaint was filed in the consolidated action. The putativeclass period in the Consolidated Amended Complaint is June 12,2014 to November 5, 2015.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Consolidated AmendedComplaint on June 17, 2016. Plaintiffs' opposition was filed July29, 2016, and Defendants' reply was filed September 23, 2016.

The Company has not recorded any liability as of September 30,2016 since any potential loss is not probable or reasonablyestimable given the preliminary nature of the proceedings.

Capstone Turbine Corporation develops, manufactures, markets andservices microturbine technology solutions for use in stationarydistributed power generation applications, including cogeneration(combined heat and power ("CHP"), and combined cooling, heat andpower ("CCHP")), renewable energy, natural resources, criticalpower supply, transportation and marine. In addition, theCompany's microturbines can be used as battery charging generatorsfor hybrid electric vehicle applications. The Company wasorganized in 1988 and has been producing its microturbinegenerators commercially since 1998.

CBL & ASSOCIATES: New Mexico ERB Has 60 Days to File Complaint--------------------------------------------------------------CBL & Associates Properties, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2016,for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that LeadPlaintiff New Mexico Educational Retirement Board has 60 days tofile a consolidated amended complaint.

On May 27, 2016, Tommy French filed a putative class action in theUnited States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennesseeon behalf of himself and all persons who purchased the Company'scommon stock between August 8, 2013 and May 24, 2016. Twoadditional suits were filed shortly thereafter with similarallegations. On June 9, 2016, The Allan J. and Sherry R. PottsLiving Trust filed a putative class action in the same Court onbehalf of the trust and all persons who purchased the Company'scommon stock between August 8, 2013 and May 24, 2016, and on June24, 2016, International Union of Painters & Allied Trades DistrictCouncil No. 35 Pension Plan filed another putative class action inthe same Court on behalf of itself and all persons who purchasedthe Company's common stock between August 9, 2011 and May 24,2016, containing similar allegations. On July 26, 2016, motionswere submitted to the Court for the consolidation of these threecases, as well as for the appointment of a lead plaintiff.

On September 26, 2016, the Court granted the motion, consolidatedthe cases into one action, and appointed the New MexicoEducational Retirement Board as lead plaintiff and its counsel,Bernstein Liebhard, as lead counsel. The Court granted the leadplaintiff 60 days to file a consolidated amended complaint, andonce filed, the Company will file a response.

The previously filed complaints are all based on substantiallysimilar allegations that certain of the Company's financingarrangements were obtained through fraud and/or misrepresentation,and that the Company and certain of its officers and directorsmade materially misleading statements to the market by failing todisclose material information concerning these allegedmisrepresentations, and concerning the supposed involvement byinsiders of the Company in alleged trading in the Company's stockby a United States senator on the basis of material nonpublicinformation. Based on these allegations, these complaints assertclaims for violation of the securities laws and seek a variety ofrelief, including unspecified monetary damages as well as costsand attorneys' fees.

The Company believes these complaints are without merit andintends to defend itself vigorously.

CBL & Associates Properties, Inc., is a real estate investmenttrust ("REIT") whose stock is traded on the New York StockExchange. The Company is the 100% owner of two qualified REITsubsidiaries, CBL Holdings I, Inc. and CBL Holdings II, Inc. AtSeptember 30, 2016, CBL Holdings I, Inc., the sole general partnerof the Operating Partnership, owned a 1.0% general partnerinterest in the Operating Partnership and CBL Holdings II, Inc.owned an 84.8% limited partner interest for a combined interestheld by the Company of 85.8%.

CECO ENVIRONMENTAL: Court Dismisses Claims Over PMFG Acquisition----------------------------------------------------------------A court has dismissed the Plaintiffs' acquisition-related claimswith prejudice, according to CECO Environmental Corp.'s November8, 2016, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and ExchangeCommission for the quarter ended September 30, 2016.

On September 3, 2015, the Company completed its acquisition of100% of PMFG, Inc.'s outstanding common stock for a purchase priceof $136.7 million.

Since the public announcement of the proposed merger on May 4,2015, CECO, Merger Sub I, Merger Sub II, PMFG and the members ofthe PMFG board of directors have been named as defendants in threelawsuits related to the acquisition, which were filed by allegedstockholders of PMFG on May 17, 2015, June 29, 2015 and July 17,2015. The first filed lawsuit, which is a derivative action thatalso purports to assert class claims, was filed in the DistrictCourt of Dallas County, Texas (the "Texas Lawsuit"). The secondand third filed lawsuits, which are class actions, were filed inthe Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware and have now beenconsolidated into a single action (the "Delaware Lawsuit," andcollectively with the Texas Lawsuit, the "Lawsuits"). In theLawsuits, the plaintiffs generally allege that the merger failedto properly value PMFG, that the individual defendants breachedtheir fiduciary duties in approving the related merger agreement,and that those breaches were aided and abetted by CECO, Merger SubI and Merger Sub II.

In the Lawsuits, the plaintiffs allege, among other things, (a)that the PMFG board of directors breached its fiduciary duties byagreeing to the merger for inadequate consideration and pursuantto a tainted process by (1) agreeing to lock up the merger withdeal protection devices that, notwithstanding the ability of PMFGto solicit actively alternative transactions, prevent otherbidders from making a successful competing offer for PMFG, (2)participating in a transaction where the loyalties of the PMFGboard of directors and management are divided, and (3) relying onfinancial and legal advisors who plaintiffs allege wereconflicted; (b) that those breaches of fiduciary duties were aidedand abetted by CECO, Merger Sub I, Merger Sub II and PMFG, and (c)that the disclosure provided in the registration statement filedby CECO on June 9, 2015 was inadequate in a number of respects.

In the Lawsuits, the plaintiffs sought, among other things, (a) toenjoin the defendants from completing the merger on the agreed-upon terms, (b) rescission, to the extent already implemented, ofthe merger agreement or any of the terms therein, and (c) costsand disbursements and attorneys' and experts' fees, as well asother equitable relief as the courts deem proper.

Effective as of August 23, 2015, PMFG and the other defendantsentered a memorandum of understanding with the plaintiffs in theDelaware Lawsuit regarding the settlement of the Delaware Lawsuit.In connection with this memorandum of understanding, PMFG agreedto make certain additional disclosures to PMFG's stockholders inorder to supplement those contained in the joint proxystatement/prospectus. After PMFG enters into a definitiveagreement with the plaintiffs in the Delaware Lawsuit, theproposed settlement will be subject to notice to the class, Courtapproval, and, if the Court approves the settlement, thesettlement, as outlined in the memorandum of understanding, willresolve all of the claims that were or could have been brought inthe Delaware Lawsuit, including all claims relating to thedecision to enter into the Mergers, entry of the Merger Agreementand any disclosure made in connection therewith including any suchclaims against CECO, Merger Sub I or Merger Sub II, but did notaffect any stockholder's rights to pursue appraisal rights. It isexpected that the resolution of the Delaware Lawsuit will alsoresolve the Texas Lawsuit, which was stayed voluntarily by theplaintiff, but placed on Texas court's two-week docket for a non-jury trial on August 15, 2016. On May 11, 2016, the Court enteredan order preliminarily approving the proposed settlement andsetting a hearing on July 13, 2016 during which it would considerwhether to enter an order granting final approval of the proposedsettlement.

On September 1, 2016, the plaintiffs withdrew from the settlementand filed a notice of dismissal of their claims with prejudice.On September 2, 2016, the Court granted plaintiffs' request anddismissed their claims with prejudice. The Court retainedjurisdiction to consider any applications for "mootness" basedattorneys' fees and expenses from plaintiffs and/or the counselfor the objector. Briefing on the attorneys' fees request isongoing.

CENTURY ALUMINUM: Has Reached Agreement to Settle Ravenswood Suit-----------------------------------------------------------------Century Aluminum Company said in its Form 10-Q filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2016, for thequarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that it has reached atentative agreement to settle the actions related to theRavenswood retiree medical benefits.

In November 2009, Century Aluminum of West Virginia ("CAWV") fileda class action complaint for declaratory judgment against theUnited Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy,Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union ("USW"),the USW's local and certain CAWV retirees, individually and asclass representatives, seeking a declaration of CAWV's rights tomodify/terminate retiree medical benefits. Later in November2009, the USW and representatives of a retiree class filed aseparate suit against CAWV, Century Aluminum Company, CenturyAluminum Master Welfare Benefit Plan, and various John Does withrespect to the foregoing.

The Company says, "As of the date of this filing, we believe wehave reached a tentative agreement to settle these actions,subject to entering into a definitive written settlement agreementamong the parties and obtaining court approval after notice to theclass."

"For the quarter ended September 30, 2016, we recognized a$23,000[,000] liability in the consolidated balance sheets with acorresponding expense included in Ravenswood charges in theconsolidated statements of operations associated with thissettlement. The tentative agreement currently anticipates that a$5,000[,000] payment would be made upon the court's final approvalof the settlement agreement and $2,000[,000] annually thereafterfor nine years."

Century Aluminum Company is a global producer of primary aluminumwith aluminum reduction facilities, or "smelters," in the UnitedStates and Iceland.

CITIGROUP: High Court Won't Hear 401(k) Plan Participants' Appeal-----------------------------------------------------------------Robert Steyer, writing for Pensions & Investments, reports thatthe U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear an appeal byparticipants in two Citigroup Inc. 401(k) plans that planexecutives breached their fiduciary duties by failing to placelimits on investments in a company stock fund during the financialcrisis of 2008.

The Supreme Court, without comment, posted its decision onDec. 5. Attorneys for the participants, in the case of Muehlgay etal. vs. Citigroup Inc. et al., filed a petition with the court inAugust seeking a hearing.

The participants were appealing a ruling by the 2nd U.S. CircuitCourt of Appeals in May, which supported previous decisions by aU.S. District Court in New York to dismiss the complaints.

In May 2015 and again in July 2015, District Court Judge John G.Koeltl dismissed complaints by participants in a class-actionsuit, who alleged plan executives and corporate executivesviolated their fiduciary duties.

Plaintiffs had argued that Citigroup's involvement in the subprimemortgage market caused "significant losses and insufficientcapital to absorb those losses," according to court documents.They alleged that such actions subsequently harmed Citigroup'sstock price.

They said that by January 2008 -- the start of the class-actionclaim period -- the defendants "should have been aware" throughpublic and internal "warning flags" that Citigroup stock was an"imprudent" investment for 401(k) plan participants, according tocourt documents.

The District Court judge dismissed the complaints because the suitwas filed after the ERISA statute of limitations. The judge alsoruled that the participants' breach-of-fiduciary-duty claims were"without merit" because they "failed to show any specialcircumstances that would have made it imprudent" for defendants toallow participants to continue investing in Citigroup stock.

CTI BIOPHARMA: Defends Consolidated Securities Suit in Washington-----------------------------------------------------------------CTI BioPharma Corp. continues to defend a consolidated securitieslitigation pending in Washington, according to the Company'sNovember 8, 2016, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities andExchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2016.

On February 10, 2016 and February 12, 2016, class action lawsuitsentitled Ahrens v. CTI BioPharma Corp. et al, Case No. 1:16-cv-01044 and McGlothlin v. CTI BioPharma Corp. et al., Case No. C16-216, respectively, were filed in the United States District Courtfor the Southern District of New York and the United StatesDistrict Court for the Western District of Washington,respectively, on behalf of shareholders that purchased or acquiredthe Company's securities pursuant to its September 24, 2015 publicoffering and/or shareholders who otherwise acquired the Company'sstock between March 4, 2014 and February 9, 2016, inclusive. Thecomplaints assert claims against the Company and certain of itscurrent and former directors and officers for violations of thefederal securities laws under Sections 11 and 15 of the SecuritiesAct of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Act, and Sections 10and 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or theExchange Act, Plaintiffs' Securities Act claims allege that theCompany's Registration Statement and Prospectus for the September24, 2015 public offering contained materially false and misleadingstatements and failed to disclose certain material adverse factsabout the Company's business, operations and prospects, includingwith respect to the clinical trials and prospects for pacritinib.Plaintiffs' Exchange Act claims allege that the Company's publicdisclosures were knowingly or recklessly false and misleading oromitted material adverse facts, again with a primary focus on theclinical trials and prospects for pacritinib.

On May 2, 2016, the Company filed a motion to transfer the Ahrenscase to the United States District Court for the Western Districtof Washington. The motion was unopposed and granted by the courton May 19, 2016. On June 3, 2016, the parties filed a joint motionto consolidate the McGlothlin case with the Ahrens case in orderto proceed as a single consolidated proceeding. On June 13, 2016,the court granted the motion to consolidate with the action beingcaptioned In re CTI BioPharma Corp. Securities Litigation, MasterFile No. 2:16-cv-00216-RSL.

On September 2, 2016, the court appointed Lead Plaintiffs and LeadCounsel. On September 28, 2016, the court entered a schedulingorder setting November 8, 2016 as the deadline to file aconsolidated class action complaint and deadlines for briefingdefendants' motion to dismiss, with briefing concluding Feb. 22,2016. The lawsuit seeks damages in an unspecified amount.

The Company believes that the allegations contained in thecomplaints are without merit and intends to vigorously defenditself against all claims asserted therein. A reasonable estimateof the amount of any possible loss or range of loss cannot be madeat this time and, as such, the Company has not recorded an accrualfor any possible loss.

CTI BioPharma Corp. is a biopharmaceutical company focused on theacquisition, development and commercialization of novel targetedtherapies covering a spectrum of blood-related cancers that offera unique benefit to patients and health care providers.

CVS HEALTH: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss "Barchock" ERISA Suit-----------------------------------------------------------------CVS Health Corporation awaits ruling on its motion to dismiss apurported class action lawsuit filed by Mary Barchock, et al.,alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income SecurityAct, the Company said in its Form 10-Q filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on November 8, 2016, for the quarterlyperiod ended September 30, 2016.

In February 2016, an ERISA class action lawsuit was filed againstthe Company, the Benefit Plans Committee of the Company, andGalliard Capital Management, Inc., in the United States DistrictCourt for the District of Rhode Island by Mary Barchock, ThomasWasecko, and Stacy Weller, purportedly on behalf of the 401(k)Plan and the Employee Stock Ownership Plan of the Company (the"Plan"), and participants in the Plan. The complaint alleges thatthe defendants breached fiduciary duties owed to the plaintiffsand the Plan by investing too much of the Plan's Stable Value Fundin short-term money market funds and cash management accounts. TheCompany has moved to dismiss the plaintiffs' amended complaint.

Plaintiffs filed Oppositions to both motions and Defendant filedReplies.

Judge Smith said denial of CVS's Motion to Dismiss is withoutprejudice to CVS raising its arguments concerning claims understate laws other than Indiana at the class certification stage.

A copy of the Court's Nov. 1 decision is available athttps://is.gd/WBHBYB from Leagle.com.

CVS Health said in its Form 10-Q filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on November 8, 2016, for the quarterly periodended September 30, 2016, that in February 2016, two third-partypayors filed a similar putative class action, Sheet Metal WorkersLocal No. 20 Welfare and Benefit Fund v. CVS Health Corp., againstthe Company in the United States District Court for the Districtof Rhode Island. The Company's motion to dismiss the suit hasbeen denied.

In August 2016, a similar complaint was filed by another third-party payor, Plumbers Welfare Fund, Local 130 v. CVS Health Corp.,also in the United States District Court for the District of RhodeIsland. The Company likewise intends to defend this action. CVSHealth filed its answer to this suit on Nov. 15.

CVS HEALTH: Caremark Suit Dismissed Following Settlement Approval-----------------------------------------------------------------CVS Health Corporation said in its Form 10-Q filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2016, for thequarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Caremark classaction lawsuit was dismissed following approval of a settlement.

Caremark -- the term "Caremark" generally refer to any one or morepharmacy benefit management ("PBM") subsidiaries of the Company,as applicable -- was named in a putative class action lawsuitfiled in October 2003 in Alabama state court by John Lauriello,purportedly on behalf of participants in the 1999 settlement ofvarious securities class action and derivative lawsuits againstCaremark and others. Other defendants include insurance companiesthat provided coverage to Caremark with respect to the settledlawsuits.

A similar lawsuit was filed in November 2003 by Frank McArthur,also in Alabama state court, naming as defendants, among others,Caremark and several insurance companies involved in the 1999settlement. This lawsuit was stayed as a later-filed class action,but McArthur was subsequently allowed to intervene in theLauriello action. The parties have entered into an agreement toresolve the matter. In connection with this agreement, the Companycontributed a total of $80 million to the settlement fund andagreed to forego its right to have its insurer continue toreimburse its related legal fees. The Company had establishedreserves related to this matter to fully cover such payments andthe payment was made in the three months ended September 30, 2016.

In August 2016, the court entered final judgment dismissing thematter and approving the settlement.

The Company denies any wrongdoing, and agreed to a settlement toavoid the burden, uncertainty and distraction of litigation.

CVS HEALTH: Certification of Customers Class Sought in Cal. Suit----------------------------------------------------------------The Plaintiffs of a consolidated lawsuit pending in Californiamove for the certification of a class involving CVS HealthCorporation customers from 11 states, according to the Company'sNovember 8, 2016, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities andExchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2016.

In July and September 2015, two related putative class actions,Corcoran, et al. v. CVS Health Corp., and Podgorny, et al. v. CVSHealth Corp., were filed against the Company in the United StatesDistrict Court in the Northern District of California and theNorthern District of Illinois, respectively. The two cases havebeen consolidated in United States District Court in the NorthernDistrict of California. In March 2016, the Court granted in partand denied in part the Company's first motion to dismiss.

In July 2016, the Court granted in part and denied in part theCompany's partial motion to dismiss the third amended complaint.Discovery is proceeding on the remaining allegations in the thirdamended complaint, which alleges that the plaintiffs overpaid forprescriptions for generic drugs filled at CVS pharmacies. Theplaintiffs seek damages and injunctive relief under the consumerprotection statutes and common laws of certain states and inOctober 2016 Plaintiffs moved for the certification of a classinvolving CVS customers from 11 states.

Beginning in August 2003, various lawsuits were filed bypharmacies alleging that various PBMs were violating certainantitrust laws. In October 2003, two independent pharmacies, NorthJackson Pharmacy, Inc. and C&C, Inc. d/b/a Big C Discount Drugs,Inc., filed three separate putative class action complaints in theUnited States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama,all seeking treble damages and injunctive relief. One complaintnamed three Caremark entities as defendants, and the other twocomplaints named PBM competitors. The North Jackson Pharmacy caseagainst two of the Caremark entities was transferred to the UnitedStates District Court for the Northern District of Illinois; thecase against the third Caremark entity was sent to arbitrationbased on contract terms between the pharmacies and that entity.The arbitration was stayed at the parties' request and laterclosed by the American Arbitration Association.

In August 2006, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigationissued an order transferring all related PBM antitrust cases,including the North Jackson Pharmacy cases, to the United StatesDistrict Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania forcoordinated and consolidated proceedings with the cases originallyfiled in that court. The consolidated action is now known as In rePharmacy Benefit Managers Antitrust Litigation.

A motion for class certification filed by the North JacksonPharmacy plaintiffs against the Caremark defendants in August 2015is currently pending.

CVS HEALTH: Discovery Has Commenced in Class Suit vs. Omnicare--------------------------------------------------------------Discovery has commenced in the consolidated class action lawsuitarising from the 2005 public offering of CVS Health Corporation'ssubsidiary, according to the Company's November 8, 2016, Form 10-Qfiling with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for thequarter ended September 30, 2016.

In February 2006, two substantially similar putative class actionlawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the EasternDistrict of Kentucky, and were consolidated and entitled IndianaState Dist. Council of Laborers & HOD Carriers Pension & WelfareFund v. Omnicare, Inc. The consolidated complaint was filedagainst Omnicare, three of its officers and two of its directorsand purported to be brought on behalf of all open-marketpurchasers of Omnicare common stock from August 3, 2005 throughJuly 27, 2006, as well as all purchasers who bought shares ofOmnicare common stock in Omnicare's public offering in December2005. The complaint alleged violations of the Securities ExchangeAct of 1934 and Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 andsought, among other things, compensatory damages and injunctiverelief. After dismissals and appeals to the United States Court ofAppeals for the Sixth Circuit, the United States Supreme Courtremanded the case to the district court.

In October 2016, Omnicare filed an answer to plaintiffs' thirdamended complaint, and discovery commenced.

A New Jersey court dismissed accusation that Daimler hadmanipulated emissions values and issued misleading advertising,news agencies Reuters and DPA reported. The court, however, saidthe plaintiffs could amend the class action suit and re-file it ata later date. U.S. law firm Hagens Berman, which filed the suit inFebruary, told DPA it would do so.

Daimler said earlier this year the class actions "are consideredto be without merit." Lawyers and car owners filed severallawsuits against the German company after its peer Volkswagenadmitted last year it had rigged 11 million diesel cars, whichemit higher values of toxic nitrogen oxide than U.S. laws allow.

DISH NETWORK: 2nd Phase of Bench Trial in Do Not Call Suit Ends---------------------------------------------------------------DISH Network Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016, forthe quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the secondphase of the bench trial in the Do Not Call Litigation commencedon October 25, 2016 and concluded on November 2, 2016.

The Company said, "On March 25, 2009, our wholly-owned subsidiaryDISH Network L.L.C. was sued in a civil action by the UnitedStates Attorney General and several states in the United StatesDistrict Court for the Central District of Illinois, allegingviolations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and theTelemarketing Sales Rule ("TSR"), as well as analogous statestatutes and state consumer protection laws. The plaintiffsallege that we, directly and through certain independent third-party retailers and their affiliates, committed certaintelemarketing violations."

"On December 23, 2013, the plaintiffs filed a motion for summaryjudgment, which indicated for the first time that the stateplaintiffs were seeking civil penalties and damages ofapproximately $270 million and that the federal plaintiff wasseeking an unspecified amount of civil penalties (which couldsubstantially exceed the civil penalties and damages being soughtby the state plaintiffs). The plaintiffs were also seekinginjunctive relief that if granted would, among other things,enjoin DISH Network L.L.C., whether acting directly or indirectlythrough authorized telemarketers or independent third-partyretailers, from placing any outbound telemarketing calls to marketor promote its goods or services for five years, and enjoin DISHNetwork L.L.C. from accepting activations or sales from certainexisting independent third-party retailers and from certain newindependent third-party retailers, except under certaincircumstances. We also filed a motion for summary judgment,seeking dismissal of all claims.

"On December 12, 2014, the Court issued its opinion with respectto the parties' summary judgment motions. The Court found thatDISH Network L.L.C. is entitled to partial summary judgment withrespect to one claim in the action. In addition, the Court foundthat the plaintiffs are entitled to partial summary judgment withrespect to ten claims in the action, which includes, among otherthings, findings by the Court establishing DISH Network L.L.C.'sliability for a substantial amount of the alleged outboundtelemarketing calls by DISH Network L.L.C. and certain of itsindependent third-party retailers that were the subject of theplaintiffs' motion. The Court did not issue any injunctive reliefand did not make any determination on civil penalties or damages,ruling instead that the scope of any injunctive relief and theamount of any civil penalties or damages are questions for trial.

"In pre-trial disclosures, the federal plaintiff indicated that itintended to seek up to $900 million in alleged civil penalties,and the state plaintiffs indicated that they intended to seek asmuch as $23.5 billion in alleged civil penalties and damages. Theplaintiffs also modified their request for injunctive relief.Their requested injunction, if granted, would enjoin DISH NetworkL.L.C. from placing outbound telemarketing calls unless and until:(i) DISH Network L.L.C. hires a third-party consultingorganization to perform a review of its call center operations;(ii) such third-party consulting organization submits atelemarketing compliance plan to the Court and the federalplaintiff; (iii) the Court holds a hearing on the adequacy of theplan; (iv) if the Court approves the plan, DISH Network L.L.C.implements the plan and verifies to the Court that it hasimplemented the plan; and (v) the Court issues an order permittingDISH Network L.L.C. to resume placing outbound telemarketingcalls. The plaintiffs' modified request for injunctive relief, ifgranted, would also enjoin DISH Network L.L.C. from acceptingcustomer orders solicited by certain independent third-partyretailers unless and until a similar third-party review and Courtapproval process was followed with respect to the telemarketingactivities of its independent third-party retailer base to ensurecompliance with the TSR.

"The first phase of the bench trial took place January 19, 2016through February 11, 2016. In closing briefs, the federalplaintiff indicated that it still is seeking $900 million inalleged civil penalties; the California state plaintiff indicatedthat it is seeking $100 million in alleged civil penalties anddamages for its state law claims (in addition to any amountssought on its federal law claims); the Ohio state plaintiffindicated that it is seeking approximately $10 million in allegedcivil penalties and damages for its state law claims (in additionto any amounts sought on its federal law claims); and the Illinoisand North Carolina state plaintiffs did not state the specificalleged civil penalties and damages that they are seeking; but thestate plaintiffs have taken the general position that any damagesaward less than $1.0 billion (presumably for both federal andstate law claims) would not raise constitutional concerns. Underthe Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, excessive fines maynot be imposed.

"On October 3, 2016, the plaintiffs further modified their requestfor injunctive relief, and are now seeking, among other things, toenjoin DISH Network L.L.C., whether acting directly or indirectlythrough authorized telemarketers or independent third-partyretailers, from placing any outbound telemarketing calls to marketor promote its goods or services for five years, and enjoin DISHNetwork L.L.C. from accepting activations or sales from some orall existing independent third-party retailers. The second phaseof the bench trial, which commenced on October 25, 2016 andconcluded on November 2, 2016, covered the plaintiffs' requestedinjunctive relief, as well as certain evidence related to thestate plaintiffs' claims.

"We may also from time to time be subject to private civillitigation alleging telemarketing violations. For example, aportion of the alleged telemarketing violations by an independentthird-party retailer at issue in the case described above are alsothe subject of a certified class action filed against DISH NetworkL.L.C. in the United States District Court for the Middle Districtof North Carolina. Trial in that action is scheduled to commenceon January 9, 2017.

"We intend to vigorously defend these cases. We cannot predictwith any degree of certainty the outcome of these suits ordetermine the extent of any potential liability or damages."

DISH Network Corporation is a holding company. Its subsidiariesoperate two primary business segments -- Pay-TV and Broadband andWireless.

DITECH FINANCIAL: Settlement in "Circeo-Loudon" Case Approved-------------------------------------------------------------Walter Investment Management Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Reportfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9,2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that thesettlement in the case, Circeo-Loudon v. Green Tree Servicing,LLC, has final approval.

Ditech Financial had been subject to several putative class actionlawsuits related to lender-placed insurance. These actions allegedthat Ditech Financial and its affiliates improperly receivedbenefits from lender-placed insurance providers in the form ofcommissions for work not performed, services provided at a reducedcost, and expense reimbursements that did not reflect the actualcost of the services rendered. Plaintiffs in these suits assertedvarious theories of recovery and sought remedies includingcompensatory, actual, punitive, statutory and treble damages,return of unjust benefits, and injunctive relief.

One such matter was Circeo-Loudon v. Green Tree Servicing, LLC etal. filed in the United States District Court for the SouthernDistrict of Florida on April 17, 2014 and amended on October 16,2014. A settlement agreement was reached between the parties inthe Circeo-Loudon matter on September 11, 2015 and the settlementwas approved by the court on August 30, 2016.

Pursuant to the settlement agreement, all of the defendantscollectively, including Ditech Financial, are required to paydamages to class members who timely file a claim, administrativecosts to effectuate the settlement and attorneys' fees and costs.

The Company believes it has accrued the full amount expected to bepaid under the settlement agreement in its consolidated financialstatements as of September 30, 2016.

The settlement agreement also provides that Ditech Financial andits subsidiary, Green Tree Insurance Agency, Inc., and theiraffiliates will be released from certain claims and may no longerreceive commissions on the placement of certain lender-placedinsurance for a period of five years commencing January 27, 2017.

This settlement resolves all lender-placed insurance class actionsfor the relevant period of the class, although the settlement doesnot apply to potential individual claims by class members who haveopted out of the proposed settlement.

DOCUMENT GROUP: Faces "Vaughn" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime----------------------------------------------------------------Eugene Vaughn, on behalf of himself individually and all otherssimilarly situated v. The Document Group, Case No. 4:16-cv-03578(S.D. Tex., December 8, 2016), is brought against the Defendantsfor failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair LaborStandards Act.

Headquartered in Houston, Texas, The Document Group providesprinting and litigation support services to its customers.

On July 29, 2010, Michael Davis, a former NFL running back, fileda putative class action in the United States District Court forthe Northern District of California against the Company, allegingthat certain past versions of Madden NFL included the images ofcertain retired NFL players without their permission. In March2012, the trial court denied the Company's request to dismiss thecomplaint on First Amendment grounds. In January 2015, that trialcourt decision was affirmed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appealsand the case was remanded back to the United States District Courtfor the Northern District of California, where the case ispending.

Electronic Arts Inc. is a global leader in digital interactiveentertainment. The Company develops, markets, publishes anddistributes games, content and services that can be played byconsumers on a variety of platforms, which include consoles (suchas the PlayStation from Sony, and the Xbox from Microsoft), PCs,mobile phones and tablets. Some of the Company's games are basedon its wholly-owned intellectual property (e.g., Battlefield, MassEffect, Need for Speed, The Sims and Plants vs. Zombies), and someof the Company's games leverage content that it licensed fromothers (e.g., FIFA, Madden NFL and Star Wars).

ENERGY TRANSFER: Dieckman's Appeal Remains Pending--------------------------------------------------Energy Transfer Partners, L.P. said in its Form 10-Q Report filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016,for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that onelawsuit related to the Regency merger litigation remains pending.

Following the January 26, 2015 announcement of the Regency Merger,purported Regency unitholders filed lawsuits in state and federalcourts in Dallas and Delaware asserting claims relating to theRegency Merger. All Regency Merger-related lawsuits have beendismissed, although one lawsuit remains pending on appeal.

On June 10, 2015, Adrian Dieckman ("Dieckman"), a purportedRegency unitholder, filed a class action complaint on behalf ofRegency's common unitholders in the Court of Chancery of the Stateof Delaware. The lawsuit alleges that the Regency Merger breachedthe Regency partnership agreement because Regency's conflictscommittee was not properly formed, and the Regency Merger was notapproved in good faith. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, andon March 29, 2016, the Delaware court granted Defendants' motionand dismissed the lawsuit.

On April 26, 2016, Dieckman filed his Notice of Appeal to theSupreme Court of Delaware. This appeal is styled Adrian Dieckmanv. Regency GP LP, et al., No. 208, 2016, in the Supreme Court ofthe State of Delaware. Dieckman filed his Opening Brief on June 9,2016, and Defendants' filed their Answering Brief on July 29,2016. On August 31, 2016, Dieckman filed his Reply Brief. Oralargument was scheduled for November 16, 2016 before the DelawareSupreme Court.

FLOWERS FOODS: Defending Against "Hendley" Suit in S.D.N.Y.-----------------------------------------------------------Flowers Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016, for thequarterly period ended October 8, 2016, that the Company isdefending against a class action lawsuit by Chris B. Hendley.

On August 12, 2016, a class action complaint was filed in the U.S.District Court for the Southern District of New York by Chris B.Hendley (the "Hendley complaint") against the company and certainsenior members of management (collectively, the "defendants").

On August 17, 2016, another class action complaint was filed inthe U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York byScott Dovell, II (the "Dovell complaint" and together with theHendley complaint, the "complaints") against the defendants.Plaintiffs in the complaints are securities holders that acquiredcompany securities between February 7, 2013 and August 10, 2016.The complaints generally allege that the defendants madematerially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed todisclose that (1) the company's labor practices were not incompliance with applicable federal laws and regulations; (2) suchnon-compliance exposed the company to legal liability and/ornegative regulatory action; and (3) as a result, the defendants'statements about the company's business, operations, and prospectswere false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. Thecounts of the complaints are asserted against the defendantspursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule10b-5 under the Exchange Act. The complaints seek (1) classcertification under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, (2)compensatory damages in favor of the plaintiffs and all otherclass members against the defendants, jointly and severally, forall damages sustained as a result of wrongdoing, in an amount tobe proven at trial, including interest, and (3) awardingplaintiffs and the class their reasonable costs and expensesincurred in the actions, including counsel and expert fees.

The company and/or its respective subsidiaries are vigorouslydefending these lawsuits. Given the stage of the complaints andthe claims and issues presented, the company cannot reasonablyestimate at this time the possible loss or range of loss, if any,that may arise from the unresolved lawsuits.

FOX ORTEGA: Holds Auction as Part of Premier Cru Settlement-----------------------------------------------------------Audrey Mcnamara, writing for The Daily Californian, reports thatBerkeley residents stepped into Premier Cru Fine Wines on Dec. 3expecting to bid on wine left over after the store's owner, FoxOrtega Enterprises, filed for bankruptcy in January while beinginvestigated by the FBI for an alleged ponzi scheme. Instead,items up for bidding included everything from tapestries to aGeorge Foreman Grill -- the wine had already been sold for $3.6million in September.

The Dec. 3 auction was the outcome of a separate settlementbetween the court appointed trustee and the building's landlord,according to the company's attorney Mark Bostick. The Chapter 7bankruptcy trustee appointed to the case, Michael Kasola, left allremaining abandoned property at the combined storefront andwarehouse -- located on University Avenue -- for the landlord tosell independently as part of the settlement.

The auction was held by Daniel Clar Auctioneers, a commercialliquidating business hired by the landlord, according to Bostick.

"We've had a very good showing so far," said Daniel ClarAuctioneers owner Harvey Clar.

Among the various items up for sale were empty bottles of winepreviously used for display in the store's showroom. One of thesebottles still containing their original wine would be worthhundreds to upwards of thousands of dollars, said Bay Area wineretailer David Netzer, who attended the auction. Mr. Netzerquestioned the legality of auctioning off empty bottles of suchexpensive wine because of the high rate of fraud involving thesale of fine wine bottles filled with cheaper wines at theoriginal label's price point.

As part of the settlement reached in the Premier Cru class actionlawsuit, the store's entire lot of retail wine was sold to thehighest bidder, Spectrum Wine Auctions. According to courtdocuments, the buyer paid $3,550,000 for the collection of primarybottles -- or those previously paid for by Premier Cru customers.Unfettered wine -- or bottles without associated sales -- weresold for a total of $126,000.

Because of the amount of wine remaining at the store andwarehouse, the case was time sensitive, according to Mr. Bostick.The sale of the wine was authorized by the U.S. bankruptcy courtAug. 30 and finalized Sept. 2.

"What was challenging was whether the bank system could processthe multiple cases in a timely way," Mr. Bostick said. "Therewere no available funds and 65,000 bottles of wine sitting in awarehouse -- it takes money to preserve, secure and catalog allthat wine."

Selling bottles in bulk is a typical form of transaction used inbankruptcy cases involving wine, said Spectrum Wine AuctionsPresident Jason Boland.

"(It's) best for everyone involved to get their cash as fast aspossible," Mr. Bostick said.

A significant portion of the acquired wine was set to be sold atan auction held at the Annenberg Space in Los Angeles on Dec. 9,Mr. Boland said.

The next legal steps involved in the ongoing case are to recoveravoidance claims and any overseas rights to the estate, accordingto Mr. Bostick.

The class action suit against Fox Ortega Enterprises totals toabout $70 million in claims, while the sale to Spectrum recoveredabout $3.6 million.

"There's a long way to go to make up for the losses," Mr. Bosticksaid.

GENESEE & WYOMING: Class Suits Over P&W Acquisition Pending-----------------------------------------------------------Genesee & Wyoming Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016, for thequarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Company isdefending against shareholder class action lawsuits related to theacquisition of Providence and Worcester Railroad Company.

On November 1, 2016, the Company completed the acquisition of P&Wfor $25.00 per share, or $126.2 million. Headquartered inWorcester, Massachusetts, P&W is contiguous with G&W's New EnglandCentral Railroad (NECR) and Connecticut Southern Railroad (CSO).Rail service is provided by approximately 140 P&W employees with32 locomotives across 163 miles of owned track and overapproximately 350 miles under track access agreements, includingexclusive freight access over Amtrak's Northeast Corridor betweenNew Haven, Connecticut, and Providence, Rhode Island, and trackagerights over Metro-North Commuter Railroad, Amtrak and CSX Corp.between New Haven, Connecticut, and Queens, New York. P&Winterchanges with G&W's NECR and CSO railroads, as well as withCSX, Norfolk Southern, Pan Am Railways, Pan Am Southern, theHousatonic Railroad and the New York and Atlantic Railroad, andalso connects to Canadian National and Canadian Pacific via NECR.

P&W serves a diverse mix of aggregates, auto, chemicals, metalsand lumber customers in southeastern New England, handlingapproximately 43,000 carloads and intermodal units annually. Inaddition, P&W provides rail service to three ports (Providence andDavisville, Rhode Island and New Haven, Connecticut) and to aUnited States Customs bonded intermodal terminal in Worcester,Massachusetts, that receives inbound intermodal containers fordistribution in New England. P&W also owns approximately 45 acresof undeveloped waterfront land in East Providence, Rhode Island,that was initially created as deep water, rail served port througha $12 million investment. The Company expects to sell thisundeveloped land.

In connection with the acquisition of the P&W, in September 2016,four shareholder class action lawsuits were commenced in the RhodeIsland Superior Court for Providence County against the Company,P&W and P&W's directors. Among other matters, the purported classactions challenge the sale of P&W to the Company, and allege thatthe P&W's board of directors breached its fiduciary duties to theP&W's shareholders by failing to maximize shareholder value inapproving the merger agreement associated with the acquisition.The lawsuits also assert that P&W and the Company aided andabetted the alleged breach of fiduciary duty.

The Company does not believe it is reasonably possible that anysuch lawsuit or related lawsuits would be material to theCompany's results of operations or have a material adverse effecton the Company's financial position or liquidity. The Company,along with the other defendants, vigorously denies all of theallegations in the purported class actions.

-- Brian A. Hellings and the Ann Hellings 2016 Trust to serve as Lead Plaintiff in the Action; and

-- Pomerantz LLP as Lead Counsel for the class.

The GEO Group, Inc., is defending a purported shareholder classaction lawsuit commenced by John J. Mulvaney in Florida, accordingto the Company's November 8, 2016, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September30, 2016.

On August 25, 2016, a purported shareholder class action lawsuitwas filed against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer, GeorgeC. Zoley ("Mr. Zoley"), and its Chief Financial Officer, Brian R.Evans ("Mr. Evans"), in the United States District Court for theSouthern District of Florida. The complaint alleges that theCompany and Messrs. Zoley and Evans made false and misleadingstatements regarding the Company's business, operational andcompliance policies. The lawsuit alleges that it is brought byJohn J. Mulvaney individually and on behalf of a class consistingof all persons other than the defendants who purchased orotherwise acquired the Company's securities during the allegedclass period between March 1, 2012 through and including August17, 2016. The complaint alleges that the Company and Messrs. Zoleyand Evans violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), and Rule 10b-5 promulgatedthereunder, and alleges that Messrs. Zoley and Evans violatedSection 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The complaint seeks damages,interest, attorneys' fees, expert fees, other costs, and suchother relief as the court may deem proper.

The Company says it intends to take all necessary steps tovigorously defend itself and Messrs. Zoley and Evans. The Companyhas not recorded an accrual relating to this matter at this time,as a loss is not considered probable or reasonably estimable atthis preliminary stage of the lawsuit.

The GEO Group, Inc., a Florida corporation, is a fully-integratedreal estate investment trust specializing in the ownership,leasing and management of correctional, detention and reentryfacilities and the provision of community-based services and youthservices in the United States, Australia, South Africa and theUnited Kingdom. The Company owns, leases and operates a broadrange of correctional and detention facilities including maximum,medium and minimum security prisons, immigration detentioncenters, minimum security detention centers, as well as communitybased reentry facilities and offers an expanded delivery ofoffender rehabilitation services under its 'GEO Continuum of Care'platform.

The action is pending in the United States District Court for theWestern District of Pennsylvania and is captioned Martin v. GNCHoldings, Inc., et al., No. 2:15-cv-01522. The complaint allegesthat defendants issued materially false and misleading statementsand/or omitted adverse information about the Company's businessand prospects.

No class has been certified in the above action. Until a class iscertified, you are not considered represented by an attorney. Youmay also choose to do nothing and be an absent class member.Sarraf Gentile LLP has not filed a lawsuit against the defendants.

If you are a current Company shareholder and want to discuss yourlegal rights, at no cost and without obligation, please contactJoseph Gentile at Sarraf Gentile LLP (telephone: 516-699-8890,extension 12; e-mail: joseph@sarrafgentile.com).

HC2 HOLDINGS: Fact Discovery to Be Completed by March 2017----------------------------------------------------------HC2 Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016, for thequarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the case, SchuffInternational, Inc. Stockholders Litigation, is in the discoveryphase, and fact discovery is scheduled to be completed on March27, 2017.

On February 19, 2015, the court consolidated the actions (nowdesignated as Schuff International, Inc. Stockholders Litigation)and appointed lead plaintiff and counsel. The currently operativecomplaint is the Complaint filed by Mark Jacobs. The Complaintalleges, among other things, that in connection with the tenderoffer, the individual members of the DBM Global's Board ofDirectors and HC2, the now-controlling stockholder of DBM Global,breached their fiduciary duties to members of the plaintiff class.The Complaint also purports to challenge a potential short-formmerger based upon plaintiff's expectation that the Company wouldcash out the remaining public stockholders of DBM Global followingthe completion of the tender offer. The Complaint seeksrescission of the tender offer and/or compensatory damages, aswell as attorney's fees and other relief.

The defendants filed answers to the Complaint on July 30, 2015.The litigation is currently in the discovery phase, and factdiscovery is scheduled to be completed on March 27, 2017. Trial isscheduled for March 12-15, 2018.

"We believe that the allegations and claims set forth in theComplaint are without merit and intend to defend our interestsvigorously," the Company said.

HC2 Holdings, Inc. is a diversified holding company which seeks toacquire and grow attractive businesses that the Company believescan generate long-term sustainable free cash flow and attractivereturns. While the Company generally intends to acquirecontrolling equity interests in its operating subsidiaries, theCompany also invests to a more limited extent in a variety of debtinstruments or noncontrolling equity interest positions. HC2'scommon stock trades on the NYSE MKT LLC under the symbol "HCHC".

HERTZ CORP: Awaits Decision in Parent's Securities Litigation-------------------------------------------------------------The Hertz Corporation awaits ruling on motions to dismiss filed inthe matter titled In re Hertz Global Holdings, Inc. SecuritiesLitigation, according to the Company's November 8, 2016, Form 10-Qfiling with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for thequarter ended September 30, 2016.

In November 2013, a purported shareholder class action, PedroRamirez, Jr. v. Hertz Global Holdings, Inc., et al., was commencedin the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey namingOld Hertz Holdings and certain of its officers as defendants andalleging violations of the federal securities laws. The complaintalleged that Old Hertz Holdings made material misrepresentationsand/or omissions of material fact in its public disclosures duringthe period from February 25, 2013 through November 4, 2013, inviolation of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities ExchangeAct of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.The complaint sought an unspecified amount of monetary damages onbehalf of the purported class and an award of costs and expenses,including counsel fees and expert fees. In June 2014, Old HertzHoldings responded to the amended complaint by filing a motion todismiss. After a hearing in October 2014, the court granted OldHertz Holdings' motion to dismiss the complaint. The dismissal waswithout prejudice and plaintiff was granted leave to file a secondamended complaint within 30 days of the order.

In November 2014, plaintiff filed a second amended complaint whichshortened the putative class period such that it was not allegedto have commenced until May 18, 2013 and made allegations thatwere not substantively very different than the allegations in theprior complaint. In early 2015, this case was assigned to a newfederal judge in the District of New Jersey, and Old HertzHoldings responded to the second amended complaint by filinganother motion to dismiss. On July 22, 2015, the court granted OldHertz Holdings' motion to dismiss without prejudice and orderedthat plaintiff could file a third amended complaint on or beforeAugust 22, 2015.

On August 21, 2015, plaintiff filed a third amended complaint. Thethird amended complaint included additional allegations, namedadditional current and former officers as defendants and expandedthe putative class period such that it was alleged to span fromFebruary 14, 2013 to July 16, 2015. On November 4, 2015, Old HertzHoldings filed its motion to dismiss. Thereafter, a motion wasmade by plaintiff to add a new plaintiff, because of challenges tothe standing of the first plaintiff.

The court granted plaintiffs leave to file a fourth amendedcomplaint to add the new plaintiff, and the new complaint wasfiled on March 1, 2016. Old Hertz Holdings and the individualdefendants moved to dismiss the fourth amended complaint in itsentirety with prejudice on March 24, 2016, and plaintiff filed itsopposition to same on May 6, 2016. On June 13, 2016, Old HertzHoldings and the individual defendants filed their reply briefs insupport of their motions to dismiss. The matter is now fullybriefed.

New Hertz and Herc Holdings are each responsible for a portion ofthe matter and Hertz Global will be responsible for managing thesettlement or other disposition of the matter. Hertz Globalbelieves that it has valid and meritorious defenses and it intendsto vigorously defend against the complaint, but litigation issubject to many uncertainties and the outcome of this matter isnot predictable with assurance. It is possible that this mattercould be decided unfavorably to Hertz Global. However, we arecurrently unable to estimate the range of these possible losses,but they could be material to the Company's consolidated financialcondition, results of operations or cash flows in any particularreporting period.

The Hertz Corporation was incorporated in Delaware in 1967 and isa successor to corporations that have been engaged in the vehiclerental and leasing business since 1918. Hertz operates itsvehicle rental business primarily through the Hertz, Dollar andThrifty brands from company-owned, licensee and franchiseelocations in the U.S., Africa, Asia, Australia, Canada, Europe,Latin America, the Middle East and New Zealand. Through its Donlensubsidiary, Hertz provides vehicle leasing and fleet managementservices.

HERTZ CORP: Awaits Ruling From Ninth Circuit in "Sobel" Suit------------------------------------------------------------The Hertz Corporation awaits decision on its appeal from a finaljudgment entered in the lawsuit initiated by Janet Sobel, et al.,the Company said in its Form 10-Q filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on November 8, 2016, for the quarterly periodended September 30, 2016.

In October 2006, Janet Sobel, Daniel Dugan, PhD. and Lydia Lee,individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TheHertz Corporation and Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company ("Enterprise")was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada(Enterprise became a defendant in a separate action which theyhave now settled.) The Sobel case is a consumer class action onbehalf of all persons who rented vehicles from Hertz at airportsin Nevada and were separately charged airport concession recoveryfees by Hertz as part of their rental charges during the classperiod.

In October 2014, the court entered final judgment against theCompany and directed Hertz to pay the class approximately $42million in restitution and $11 million in prejudgment interest,and to pay attorney's fees of $3.1 million with an additional $3.1million to be paid from the restitution fund. In December 2014,Hertz timely filed an appeal of that final judgment with the U.S.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and the plaintiffs crossappealed the court's judgment seeking to challenge the lowercourt's ruling that Hertz did not deceive or mislead the classmembers. The matter has now been fully briefed by the parties.Oral argument was set for December 12, 2016, in San Francisco.

The Company continues to believe the outcome of this case will notbe material to its financial condition, results of operations orcash flows.

The Hertz Corporation was incorporated in Delaware in 1967 and isa successor to corporations that have been engaged in the vehiclerental and leasing business since 1918. Hertz operates itsvehicle rental business primarily through the Hertz, Dollar andThrifty brands from company-owned, licensee and franchiseelocations in the U.S., Africa, Asia, Australia, Canada, Europe,Latin America, the Middle East and New Zealand. Through its Donlensubsidiary, Hertz provides vehicle leasing and fleet managementservices.

HUNTINGTON BANCSHARES: Awaits January 24 Trial in "Powell" Suit---------------------------------------------------------------Huntington Bancshares Incorporated awaits trial in the lawsuitcaptioned Powell v. Huntington National Bank, which is currentlyset for January 24, 2017, according to the Company's November 8,2016, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and ExchangeCommission for the quarter ended September 30, 2016.

Huntington is a defendant in a putative class action filed onOctober 15, 2013. The plaintiffs filed the action in West Virginiastate court on behalf of themselves and other West Virginiamortgage loan borrowers who allege they were charged late fees inviolation of West Virginia law and the loan documents. Plaintiffsseek statutory civil penalties, compensatory damages andattorney's fees. Huntington removed the case to federal court,answered the complaint, and, on January 17, 2014, filed a motionfor judgment on the pleadings, asserting that West Virginia law ispreempted by federal law and therefore does not apply toHuntington. Following further briefing by the parties, the federaldistrict court denied Huntington's motion for judgment on thepleadings on September 26, 2014.

On June 8, 2015, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals grantedHuntington's motion for an interlocutory appeal of the districtcourt's decision. The matter was briefed and oral argument held,but after the oral argument, the Fourth Circuit dismissed theappeal as improvidently granted and remanded the case back to thedistrict court for further proceedings. The matter is movingforward in the trial court and Huntington has filed an earlymotion for summary judgment. The discovery stay has been lifted,and the parties have engaged in discovery. Trial is now set forJanuary 24, 2017.

Huntington Bancshares Incorporated is a multi-state diversifiedregional bank holding company organized under Maryland law in 1966and headquartered in Columbus, Ohio. Through The HuntingtonNational Bank, the Company has 150 years of servicing thefinancial needs of its customers. Through its subsidiaries, theCompany provides full-service commercial and consumer bankingservices, mortgage banking services, automobile financing,recreational vehicle and marine financing, equipment leasing,investment management, trust services, brokerage services,insurance service programs, and other financial products andservices.

HUNTINGTON BANCSHARES: Awaits OK of Settlement in Merger Suits--------------------------------------------------------------Huntington Bancshares Incorporated awaits approval of a settlementto resolve merger-related lawsuits filed in federal courts inOhio, according to the Company's November 8, 2016, Form 10-Qfiling with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for thequarter ended September 30, 2016.

Huntington is a defendant in five lawsuits filed in February andMarch of 2016 in state and federal courts in Ohio relating to theFirstMerit merger. The plaintiffs in each case are FirstMeritshareholders and have filed class action and derivative claimsseeking to enjoin the merger. The plaintiffs also claim that theregistration statement filed regarding the merger containedmaterial omissions and/or misrepresentations and seek the filingof a revised registration statement, as well as money damages.Specifically as to Huntington, the plaintiffs claim Huntingtonaided and abetted in alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by theFirstMerit board of directors in approving the merger, and in onecomplaint, allege that Huntington had direct involvement in makingomissions and/or misrepresentations in the registration statement.Huntington is preparing its defense to the complaints. The statecourt cases have been consolidated and stayed pending the outcomeof the federal court cases, and plaintiffs' motion for expediteddiscovery was denied. The federal court cases have beenconsolidated and the defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss onnumerous grounds. The court stayed discovery pending the outcomeof the defendants' motion to dismiss.

The plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary injunction to delaythe shareholder vote scheduled for June 13, 2016 on the basis thatsupplemental disclosures should be provided to the shareholders. Ahearing took place on the preliminary injunction motion forFriday, June 10.

The parties in the federal court cases have entered into atentative settlement. The defendants made agreed supplementaldisclosures in advance of the shareholder vote in exchange forwhich plaintiffs agreed to withdraw their preliminary injunctionmotion and agreed to a release of all claims in the federal andstate actions. The parties have jointly moved for approval of thesettlement by the federal court.

The plaintiffs in the state court cases did not join in thesettlement, and one of them filed a motion to be appointed thelead plaintiff in the state cases, which the federal court hasdenied. Should the settlement be approved, however, the claims inthe state court cases will be released.

Huntington Bancshares Incorporated is a multi-state diversifiedregional bank holding company organized under Maryland law in 1966and headquartered in Columbus, Ohio. Through The HuntingtonNational Bank, the Company has 150 years of servicing thefinancial needs of its customers. Through its subsidiaries, theCompany provides full-service commercial and consumer bankingservices, mortgage banking services, automobile financing,recreational vehicle and marine financing, equipment leasing,investment management, trust services, brokerage services,insurance service programs, and other financial products andservices.

HUNTINGTON BANCSHARES: Unit Appeals Denial in Overdraft Suit------------------------------------------------------------FirstMerit Corporation appealed the denial of its motion to compelarbitration in a lawsuit over overdraft fees, HuntingtonBancshares Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2016, for thequarterly period ended September 30, 2016.

Commencing in December 2010, two separate lawsuits were filed inthe Summit County Court of Common Pleas and the Lake County Courtof Common Pleas against FirstMerit. The complaints were brought asputative class actions on behalf of Ohio residents who maintaineda checking account at FirstMerit and who incurred one or moreoverdraft fees as a result of the alleged re-sequencing of debittransactions. The lawsuit that had been filed in Summit CountyCourt of Common Pleas was dismissed without prejudice on July 11,2011. The remaining suit in Lake County seeks actual damages,disgorgement of overdraft fees, punitive damages, interest,injunctive relief, and attorney fees. In December 2012, the trialcourt issued an order certifying a proposed class and FirstMeritappealed the order to the Eleventh District Court of Appeals.

In September 2013, the Eleventh District Court of Appeals affirmedin part and reversed in part the trial court's class certificationorder, and remanded the case back to the trial court for furtherconsideration, in particular with respect to the class definition.The Ohio Supreme Court declined to accept jurisdiction.

In August 2014, FirstMerit filed a motion asking the trial courtto stay the lawsuit pending arbitration of claims subject to anarbitration agreement. On August 25, 2014, the parties stipulatedto a revised class definition (without affecting the pendingmotion to stay). An order approving the stipulated revised classwas entered on June 3, 2016. The trial court denied FirstMerit'smotion to compel arbitration in August 2016 and FirstMerit filed anotice of appeal of that decision.

Huntington Bancshares Incorporated is a multi-state diversifiedregional bank holding company organized under Maryland law in 1966and headquartered in Columbus, Ohio. Through The HuntingtonNational Bank, the Company has 150 years of servicing thefinancial needs of its customers. Through its subsidiaries, theCompany provides full-service commercial and consumer bankingservices, mortgage banking services, automobile financing,recreational vehicle and marine financing, equipment leasing,investment management, trust services, brokerage services,insurance service programs, and other financial products andservices.

IMPAX LABORATORIES: Discovery Ongoing in Solodyn(R) Antitrust Case------------------------------------------------------------------Impax Laboratories, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016, forthe quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that discovery isongoing and trial is set for March 22, 2018, in the Solodyn(Minocycline Hydrochloride) Antitrust Litigation.

From July 2013 to January 2016, 18 complaints were filed as classactions on behalf of direct and indirect purchasers, as well as bycertain direct purchasers against manufacturers of the brand drugSolodyn(R) and its generic equivalents, including the Company.

On July 22, 2013, Plaintiff United Food and Commercial WorkersLocal 1776 & Participating Employers Health and Welfare Fund, anindirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the UnitedStates District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania onbehalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On July 23, 2013, Plaintiff Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc., adirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the UnitedStates District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania onbehalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On August 1, 2013, Plaintiff International Union of OperatingEngineers Local 132 Health and Welfare Fund, an indirectpurchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United StatesDistrict Court for the Northern District of California on behalfof itself and others similarly situated. On August 29, 2013, thisPlaintiff withdrew its complaint from the United States DistrictCourt for the Northern District of California, and on August 30,2013, re-filed the same complaint in the United States Court forthe Eastern District of Pennsylvania, on behalf of itself andothers similarly situated.

On August 9, 2013, Plaintiff Local 274 Health & Welfare Fund, anindirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the UnitedStates District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania onbehalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On August 12, 2013, Plaintiff Sheet Metal Workers Local No. 25Health & Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class actioncomplaint in the United States District Court for the EasternDistrict of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarlysituated.

On August 27, 2013, Plaintiff Fraternal Order of Police, FortLauderdale Lodge 31, Insurance Trust Fund, an indirect purchaser,filed a class action complaint in the United States District Courtfor the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself andothers similarly situated.

On August 29, 2013, Plaintiff Heather Morgan, an indirectpurchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United StatesDistrict Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalfof itself and others similarly situated.

On August 30, 2013, Plaintiff Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 178Health & Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class actioncomplaint in the United States District Court for the EasternDistrict of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarlysituated.

On September 9, 2013, Plaintiff Ahold USA, Inc., a directpurchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United StatesDistrict Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf ofitself and others similarly situated.

On September 24, 2013, Plaintiff City of Providence, Rhode Island,an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in theUnited States District Court for the District of Arizona on behalfof itself and others similarly situated.

On October 2, 2013, Plaintiff International Union of OperatingEngineers Stationary Engineers Local 39 Health & Welfare TrustFund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in theUnited States District Court for the District of Massachusetts onbehalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On October 7, 2013, Painters District Council No. 30 Health andWelfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class actioncomplaint in the United States District Court for the District ofMassachusetts on behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On October 25, 2013, Plaintiff Man-U Service Contract Trust Fund,an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in theUnited States District Court for the Eastern District ofPennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On March 13, 2014, Plaintiff Allied Services Division WelfareFund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in theUnited States District Court for the District of Massachusetts onbehalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On March 19, 2014, Plaintiff NECA-IBEW Welfare Trust Fund, anindirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the UnitedStates District Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalfof itself and others similarly situated.

On February 25, 2014, the United States Judicial Panel onMultidistrict Litigation ordered the pending actions transferredto the District of Massachusetts for coordinated pretrialproceedings, as In Re Solodyn (Minocycline Hydrochloride)Antitrust Litigation.

On March 26, 2015, Walgreen Co., The Kruger Co., Safeway Inc., HEBGrocery Company L.P., Albertson's LLC, direct purchasers, filed aseparate complaint in the United States District Court for theMiddle District of Pennsylvania. On April 8, 2015, the JudicialPanel on Multi-District Litigation ordered the action betransferred to the District of Massachusetts, to be coordinated orconsolidated with the coordinated proceedings. The originalcomplaint filed by the plaintiffs asserted claims only againstdefendant Medicis. On October 5, 2015, the plaintiffs filed anamended complaint asserting claims against the Company and theother generic defendants.

On April 16, 2015, Rite Aid Corporation and Rite Aid Hdqtrs. Corp,direct purchasers, filed a separate complaint in the United StatesDistrict Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. On May 1,2015, the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation ordered theaction be transferred to the District of Massachusetts, to becoordinated or consolidated with the coordinated proceedings. Theoriginal complaint filed by the plaintiffs asserted claims onlyagainst defendant Medicis. On October 5, 2015, the plaintiffsfiled an amended complaint asserting claims against the Companyand the other generic defendants.

On January 25, 2016, CVS Pharmacy, Inc., a direct purchaser, fileda separate complaint in the United States District Court for theMiddle District of Pennsylvania. On February 11, 2016, theJudicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation ordered the action tobe transferred to the District of Massachusetts to be coordinatedor consolidated with the coordinated proceedings.

The consolidated amended complaints allege that Medicis engaged inanticompetitive schemes by, among other things, filing frivolouspatent litigation lawsuits, submitting frivolous CitizenPetitions, and entering into anticompetitive settlement agreementswith several generic manufacturers, including the Company, todelay generic competition of Solodyn(R) and in violation of stateand federal antitrust laws. Plaintiffs seek, among other things,unspecified monetary damages and equitable relief, includingdisgorgement and restitution. On August 14, 2015, the Courtgranted in part and denied in part defendants' motion to dismissthe consolidated amended complaints. Discovery is ongoing. Trialis set for March 22, 2018.

IMPAX LABORATORIES: Discovery Ongoing in Opana ER Antitrust Case----------------------------------------------------------------Impax Laboratories, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016, forthe quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that discovery isongoing and no trial has been scheduled in the case, Opana ER(R)antitrust litigation.

From June 2014 to February 2016, 14 complaints were filed as classactions on behalf of direct and end-payor (indirect) purchasers,as well as by certain direct purchasers, against the manufacturerof the brand drug Opana ER(R) and the Company.

On June 4, 2014, Plaintiff Fraternal Order of Police, Miami Lodge20, Insurance Trust Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a classaction complaint in the United States District Court for theEastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and otherssimilarly situated.

On June 4, 2014, Plaintiff Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc., adirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the UnitedStates District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania onbehalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On June 6, 2014, Plaintiff Value Drug Company, a direct purchaser,filed a class action complaint in the United States District Courtfor the Northern District of California on behalf of itself andothers similarly situated. On June 26, 2014, this Plaintiffwithdrew its complaint from the United States District Court forthe Northern District of California, and on July 16, 2014, re-filed the same complaint in the United States District Court forthe Northern District of Illinois, on behalf of itself and otherssimilarly situated.

On June 19, 2014, Plaintiff Wisconsin Masons' Health Care Fund, anindirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the UnitedStates District Court for the Northern District of Illinois onbehalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On July 17, 2014, Plaintiff Massachusetts Bricklayers, an indirectpurchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United StatesDistrict Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalfof itself and others similarly situated.

On August 11, 2014, Plaintiff Pennsylvania Employees Benefit TrustFund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in theUnited States District Court for the Northern District of Illinoison behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On September 19, 2014, Plaintiff Meijer Inc., a direct purchaser,filed a class action complaint in the United States District Courtfor the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of itself andothers similarly situated.

On October 3, 2014, Plaintiff International Union of OperatingEngineers, Local 138 Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed aclass action complaint in the United States District Court for theNorthern District of Illinois on behalf of itself and otherssimilarly situated.

On November 17, 2014, Louisiana Health Service & Indemnity Companyd/b/a Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Louisiana, an indirectpurchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United StatedDistrict Court for the Middle District of Louisiana on behalf ofitself and others similarly situated.

On December 19, 2014, Plaintiff Kim Mahaffay, an indirectpurchaser, filed a class action complaint in the Superior Court ofthe State of California, Alameda County, on behalf of herself andothers similarly situated. On January 27, 2015, the Defendantsremoved the action to the United States District Court for theNorthern District of California.

On January 12, 2015, Plaintiff Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 178Health & Welfare Trust Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a classaction complaint in the United States District Court for theNorthern District of Illinois on behalf of itself and otherssimilarly situated.

On December 12, 2014, the United States Judicial Panel onMultidistrict Litigation ordered the pending actions transferredto the Northern District of Illinois for coordinated pretrialproceedings, as In Re Opana ER Antitrust Litigation.

On March 26, 2015 Walgreen Co., The Kruger Co., Safeway Inc., HEBGrocery Company L.P., Albertson's LLC, direct purchasers, filed aseparate complaint in the United States District Court for theNorthern District of Illinois.

On April 23, 2015, Rite Aid Corporation and Rite Aid Hdqtrs. Corp,direct purchasers, filed a separate complaint in the United StatesDistrict Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

In each case, the complaints allege that Endo engaged in ananticompetitive scheme by, among other things, entering into ananticompetitive settlement agreement with the Company to delaygeneric competition of Opana ER(R) and in violation of state andfederal antitrust laws. Plaintiffs seek, among other things,unspecified monetary damages and equitable relief, includingdisgorgement and restitution. Consolidated amended complaints werefiled on May 4, 2015 by direct purchaser plaintiffs and end-payor(indirect) purchaser plaintiffs.

On February 1, 2016, CVS Pharmacy, Inc. filed a complaint in theUnited States District Court for the Northern District ofIllinois. The parties agreed that CVS Pharmacy, Inc. would bebound by the court's ruling on the defendants' motion to dismissthe Opt-Out Plaintiffs' complaints.

On February 10, 2016, the court granted in part and denied in partdefendants' motion to dismiss the end-payor purchaser plaintiffs'consolidated amended complaint, and denied defendants' motion todismiss the direct purchaser plaintiffs' consolidated amendedcomplaint. The end-payor purchaser plaintiffs have filed a secondconsolidated amended complaint and the Company has moved todismiss certain state law claims.

On February 25, 2016, the court granted defendants' motion todismiss the Opt-Out Plaintiffs' complaints, with leave to amend.The Opt-Out Plaintiffs and CVS Pharmacy, Inc. have filed amendedcomplaints and the Company has filed its answer.

IMPAX LABORATORIES: No Trial Yet in Digoxin and Doxycycline Suits-----------------------------------------------------------------Impax Laboratories, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016, forthe quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that trial has notyet been scheduled in the case, In re Generic Digoxin andDoxycycline Antitrust Litigation.

From March 2016 to October 2016, 21 complaints were filed as classactions on behalf of direct and indirect purchasers againstmanufacturers of generic digoxin and doxycycline and the Company.

On March 2, 2016, Plaintiff International Union of OperatingEngineers Local 30 Benefits Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed aclass action complaint in the United States District Court for theEastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and otherssimilarly situated. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint onJune 9, 2016.

On March 25, 2016, Plaintiff Tulsa Firefighters Health and WelfareTrust, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint inthe United States District Court for the Eastern District ofPennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On March 25, 2016, Plaintiff NECA-IBEW Welfare Trust Fund, anindirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the UnitedStates District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania onbehalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On April 4, 2016, Plaintiff Pipe Trade Services MN, an indirectpurchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United StatesDistrict Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalfof itself and others similarly situated.

On April 25, 2016, Plaintiff Edward Carpinelli, an indirectpurchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United StatesDistrict Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalfof itself and others similarly situated.

On April 27, 2016, Plaintiff Fraternal Order of Police, MiamiLodge 20, Insurance Trust Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed aclass action complaint in the United States District Court for theEastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and otherssimilarly situated.

On May 2, 2016, Plaintiff Nina Diamond, an indirect purchaser,filed a class action complaint in the United States District Courtfor the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself andothers similarly situated.

On May 5, 2016, Plaintiff UFCW Local 1500 Welfare Fund, anindirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the UnitedStates District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania onbehalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On May 6, 2016, Plaintiff Minnesota Laborers Health and WelfareFund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in theUnited States District Court for the Eastern District ofPennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On May 12, 2016, Plaintiff The City of Providence, Rhode Island,an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in theUnited States District Court for the District of Rhode Island onbehalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On May 18, 2016, Plaintiff KPH Healthcare Services, Inc. a/k/aKinney Drugs, Inc., a direct purchaser, filed a class actioncomplaint in the United States District Court for the EasternDistrict of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarlysituated.

On May 19, 2016, Plaintiff Philadelphia Federation of TeachersHealth and Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a classaction complaint in the United States District Court for theEastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and otherssimilarly situated.

On June 8, 2016, Plaintiff United Food & Commercial Workers andEmployers Arizona Health and Welfare Trust, an indirect purchaser,filed a class action complaint in the United States District Courtfor the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself andothers similarly situated.

On June 17, 2016, Plaintiff Ottis McCrary, an indirect purchaser,filed a class action complaint in the United States District Courtfor the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself andothers similarly situated.

On June 20, 2016, Plaintiff Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc., adirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the UnitedStates District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania onbehalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On June 27, 2016, Plaintiff CÇsar Castillo Inc., a directpurchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United StatesDistrict Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalfof itself and others similarly situated.

On June 29, 2016, Plaintiff Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 33 Healthand Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class actioncomplaint in the United States District Court for the EasternDistrict of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarlysituated.

On July 1, 2016, Plaintiff Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 178 Healthand Welfare Trust Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a classaction complaint in the United States District Court for theEastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and otherssimilarly situated.

On July 15, 2016, Plaintiff Ahold USA, Inc., a direct purchaser,filed a class action complaint in the United States District Courtfor the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself andothers similarly situated.

On September 7, 2016, Plaintiff United Here Health, an indirectpurchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United StatesDistrict Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalfof itself and others similarly situated.

On September 20, 2016, Plaintiff Valerie Velardi, an indirectpurchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United StatesDistrict Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalfof itself and others similarly situated.

On May 19, 2016, several indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed amotion with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation totransfer and consolidate the actions in the United States DistrictCourt for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The Judicial Panelordered the actions consolidated in the Eastern District ofPennsylvania and ordered that the actions be renamed "In reGeneric Digoxin and Doxycycline Antitrust Litigation". No trialdate has been scheduled.

IMPAX LABORATORIES: AWP Actions in Pennsylvania Remain Stayed-------------------------------------------------------------Impax Laboratories, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016, forthe quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that two AWPactions remain stayed.

On December 30, 2015, Plumbers' Local Union No. 690 Health Planand others similarly situated filed a class action against severalgeneric drug manufacturers, including the Company, in the Court ofCommon Pleas of Philadelphia County, First Judicial District ofPennsylvania, Civil Trial Division, alleging that the Company andothers violated the law, including the Pennsylvania Unfair TradePractices and Consumer Protection law, by inflating the AverageWholesale Price ("AWP") of certain generic drugs. The case hassince been removed to federal court in the United States DistrictCourt for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

By virtue of an amended complaint filed on March 29, 2016, thesuit has been amended to comprise a nationwide class of thirdparty payors that allegedly reimbursed or purchased certaingeneric drugs based on AWP and to assert causes of action underthe laws of other states in addition to Pennsylvania. On May 17,2016, this case was stayed.

On February 5, 2016, Delaware Valley Health Care Coalition filed alawsuit based on substantially similar allegations in the Court ofCommon Pleas of Philadelphia County, First Judicial District ofPennsylvania, Civil Trial Division that seeks declaratoryjudgment. On May 20, 2016, this case was stayed pending resolutionof the federal court action.

INCONTACT INC: Reached MOU to Settle Consolidated Suit------------------------------------------------------inContact, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016, for thequarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Company andthe Board of Directors have entered into a memorandum ofunderstanding with the plaintiffs regarding settling theconsolidated class action.

On June 10, 2016, a complaint captioned Natalie Gordon v.inContact, Inc., et al., Case No. 160903695 was filed in the ThirdJudicial District Court of Salt Lake County, State of Utah (the"Court") naming as defendants inContact and its Board of Directors(the "Gordon Action"). The plaintiff filed an amended complaint inthe Gordon Action on July 1, 2016.

On July 5, 2016, a complaint captioned David Stern v. inContact,Inc., et al., Case No. 160904200 was filed in the same Courtnaming as defendants inContact and its Board of Directors (the"Stern Action").

On July 8, 2016, a complaint captioned Andre Davis v. inContact.Inc., et al., Case No. 160904272 was filed in the same Courtnaming as defendants inContact, its Board of Directors, Parent andMerger Subsidiary (the "Davis Action"). On July 14, 2016 theCourt ordered the three actions consolidated and designated theamended complaint in the Gordon action as the operative complaint.

The consolidated action purports to be a class action brought byshareholders alleging that inContact's Board of Directors breachedtheir fiduciary duties by approving the Merger Agreement with NICEpursuant to which the Company would be acquired as a wholly ownedindirect subsidiary of NICE. The complaint seeks, among otherthings, either to enjoin the proposed transaction or to rescindthe transaction in the event it is consummated.

Without admitting to any fault, inContact and the Board ofDirectors have entered into a memorandum of understanding with theplaintiffs regarding settling the consolidated action. The partiesare conducting confirmatory discovery prior to finalizing thesettlement.

In March 2014, a complaint entitled In re InterCloud Systems Sec.Litigation, Case No. 3:14-cv-01982 (D.N.J.) was filed in theUnited States District Court for the District of New Jerseyagainst the Company, the Company's Chairman of the Board and ChiefExecutive Officer, Mark Munro, The DreamTeamGroup and MissionIR,as purported securities advertisers and investor relations firms,and John Mylant, a purported investor and investment advisor. Thecomplaint was purportedly filed on behalf of a class of certainpersons who purchased the Company's common stock between November5, 2013 and March 17, 2014. The complaint alleged violations bythe defendants (other than Mark Munro) of Section 10(b) of theExchange Act, and other related provisions in connection withcertain alleged courses of conduct that were intended to deceivethe plaintiff and the investing public and to cause the members ofthe purported class to purchase shares of the Company's commonstock at artificially inflated prices based on untrue statementsof a material fact or omissions to state material facts necessaryto make the statements not misleading. The complaint also allegedthat Mr. Munro and the Company violated Section 20 of the ExchangeAct as controlling persons of the other defendants. The complaintseeks unspecified damages, attorney and expert fees, and otherunspecified litigation costs.

"After months of ineffective and intermittent back and forth,Plaintiffs still lack basic information necessary to movediscovery along in this case," Thomas Tucker Ronzetti, theattorney for the investors in the class-action lawsuit, wrote in arecent motion.

He later added, "Plaintiffs have been patient and reasonable withJoel Burstein, but to no avail."

The class-action case, led by Brazilian investor AlexanderDaccache, asks a judge to "compel" attorneys for Mr. Burstein toconduct electronic searches for terms related to the case for hispersonal devices, such as iPads and iPhones, as well as any cloudstorage system he may have used.

Attorneys for the investors and lawyers for Mr. Burstein, accountmanager for his father-in-law at Raymond James branch in Florida,have been going back and forth over what the search terms relatedto the case should be as well as how to go about the search. Thereare also questions whether the devices from several years ago areeven available.

"Burstein has also refused to state whether certain devices willbe searched for responsive ESI (electronically storedinformation)," Mr. Ronzetti wrote, "verify whether ESI searcheswill cover cloud storage services, or confirm information aboutdevice contents that may otherwise be available to him and thusshould be included in his ESI searches."

Also, the debate between the parties involves the intricacies ofBoolean searches and how to conduct them. Boolean searches allowa user to broaden, or limit a search, by combining terms withwords such as "and, "or," or "not."

"Plaintiffs promptly addressed counsel's questions, defined thereferenced Boolean operators, and explained that depending on thesystem used to conduct the search the term 'ari' may not pick up'ariel,'" Mr. Ronzetti wrote.

The latest motion by the attorneys for the investors asks a judgeto set a Dec. 30 deadline for lawyers for Mr. Burstein to conductthe searches and provide whatever relevant information they find.

Mr. Burstein was a manager of a Coral Gables, Florida, branch ofRaymond James where Quiros kept Jay Peak investor funds. Thosefunds were raised through the EB-5 immigrant investor program andmeant for development projects in Vermont's Northeast Kingdom,including hotels at Jay Peak and Burke Mountain.

Federal and state lawsuits brought in April allege Mr. Quiros,owner of Q Resorts, a holding company that includes Jay Peak, andWilliam Stenger, Jay Peak's former CEO, misused $200 millionraised through EB-5 visa program, operating a "Ponzi-like" scheme.

The Daccache lawsuit followed, with attorneys for investorsalleging that Mr. Quiros "orchestrated" the fraud, whileMr. Stenger, Burstein and Raymond James "enabled" the allegedfraud.

The bank, according to the Daccache lawsuit, allowed Mr. Quiros tocreate "an intricate web of transfers among various accounts atRaymond James to disguise the fact that most of the seven projectswere either over budget or experiencing shortfalls."

These shortfalls were due in large part to Mr. Quiros allegedlytaking millions of dollars of investor money for his own use, thelawsuit states.

Since the filing of the Daccache lawsuit, attorneys for theinvestors have submitted several motions in recent months seekingrecords from several parties related to the case, includingRaymond James and Jong Weon (Alex) Choi, a longtime businessassociate of Quiros.

Attorneys for the investors are also seeking financial recordsfrom Raymond James for accounts associated with Ary Quiros andNicole Quiros, Ariel Quiros' daughter.

Nicole Quiros, an accountant, had been married during the time ofthe alleged fraud to Burstein. Ary Quiros had operated Q BurkeMountain Resort in Vermont until it was later seized by federalregulators when they filed their lawsuit in April.

J2 GLOBAL: Class Certification in Paldo Suit Pending----------------------------------------------------j2 Global, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016, for thequarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the NorthernDistrict of Illinois has not yet addressed class certification inthe lawsuit filed by Paldo Sign and Display Co.

On January 18, 2013, Paldo Sign and Display Co. ("Paldo") filed anamended complaint adding two j2 Global affiliates and a formeremployee as additional defendants in an existing putative classaction pending in the U.S. District Court for the NorthernDistrict of Illinois ("Northern District of Illinois") (No. 1:13-cv-01896). The amended complaint alleged violations of theTelephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), the Illinois ConsumerFraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act ("ICFA"), and commonlaw conversion, arising from an indirect customer's alleged use ofa j2 Global affiliate's systems to send unsolicited facsimiletransmissions.

The j2 Global affiliates filed a motion to dismiss the ICFA andconversion claims, which was granted. The Northern District ofIllinois also dismissed the former employee for lack of personaljurisdiction.

On August 23, 2013, a second plaintiff, Sabon, Inc. ("Sabon"), wasadded.

On March 7, 2016, the j2 Global affiliates moved for summaryjudgment on all remaining claims. The summary judgment motions arepending. The Northern District of Illinois has not yet addressedclass certification.

j2 Global, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, is a provider ofInternet services. Through its Business Cloud Services Division,the Company provides cloud services to businesses of all sizes,from individuals to enterprises, and licenses its intellectualproperty ("IP") to third parties. In addition, the Business CloudServices Division includes j2 Cloud Connect, which primarilyfocuses on our number-based voice and fax services. The DigitalMedia Division specializes in the technology, gaming,entertainment and lifestyle markets, reaching in-market buyers andinfluencers in both the consumer and business-to-business space.

J2 GLOBAL: Final Settlement Approval Hearing in Early 2017----------------------------------------------------------j2 Global, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016, for thequarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Los AngelesSuperior Court will consider final approval of the settlement inthe case brought by LEO and Dancel in early 2017.

On June 23, 2014, Andre Free-Vychine ("Free-Vychine") filed aputative class action against two j2 Global affiliates in theSuperior Court for the State of California, County of Los Angeles("Los Angeles Superior Court") (No. BC549422). The complaintalleged two California statutory violations relating to late feeslevied in certain eVoice(R) accounts. Free-Vychine sought, amongother things, damages and injunctive relief on behalf of himselfand a purported nationwide class of similarly situated persons.

On August 26, 2014, Law Enforcement Officers, Inc. ("LEO") and IVPit Stop, Inc. ("IV Pit Stop") filed a separate putative classaction against the same j2 Global affiliates in Los AngelesSuperior Court (No. BC555721). The complaint alleged threeCalifornia statutory violations, negligence, breach of the impliedcovenant of good faith and fair dealing, and various other commonlaw claims relating to late fees levied on any of the j2 Globalaffiliates' customers, including those with eVoice(R) andOnebox(R) accounts. LEO and IV Pit Stop sought, among otherthings, damages and injunctive relief on behalf of themselves anda purported nationwide class of similarly situated persons.

On September 29, 2014, the Los Angeles Superior Court related andconsolidated both cases for discovery purposes. On March 13, 2015,a third amended complaint was filed in the case brought by LEO,which no longer included IV Pit Stop as a plaintiff but addedChristopher Dancel ("Dancel") as a plaintiff.

On June 26, 2015, the case filed by Free-Vychine was dismissedpursuant to a settlement agreement. On October 7, 2015, theparties in the case brought by LEO and Dancel reached a tentativeclass-based settlement.

On September 12, 2016, the Los Angeles Superior Court certifiedthe class for settlement purposes only and preliminary approvedthe settlement. The court will consider final approval of thesettlement in early 2017.

j2 Global, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, is a provider ofInternet services. Through its Business Cloud Services Division,the Company provides cloud services to businesses of all sizes,from individuals to enterprises, and licenses its intellectualproperty ("IP") to third parties. In addition, the Business CloudServices Division includes j2 Cloud Connect, which primarilyfocuses on our number-based voice and fax services. The DigitalMedia Division specializes in the technology, gaming,entertainment and lifestyle markets, reaching in-market buyers andinfluencers in both the consumer and business-to-business space.

JAKKS PACIFIC: Motion to Dismiss Third Amended Complaint Pending----------------------------------------------------------------JAKKS Pacific, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016, for thequarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Company'smotion to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint in a class actionlawsuit remains pending.

On July 25, 2013, a purported class action lawsuit was filed inthe United States District Court for the Central District ofCalifornia captioned Melot v. JAKKS Pacific, Inc. et al., Case No.CV13-05388 (JAK) against Stephen G. Berman, Joel M. Bennett(collectively the "Individual Defendants"), and the Company(collectively, "Defendants").

On January 17, 2014, Plaintiff filed a consolidated class actioncomplaint (the "First Amended Complaint") against Defendants whichalleged that the Company violated Section 10(b) of the SecuritiesExchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making falseand/or misleading statements concerning Company financialprojections and performance as part of its public filings andearnings calls from July 17, 2012 through July 17, 2013.Specifically, the First Amended Complaint alleged that theCompany's forward looking statements, guidance and other publicstatements were false and misleading for allegedly failing todisclose (i) certain alleged internal forecasts, (ii) theCompany's alleged quarterly practice of laying off and rehiringworkers, (iii) the Company's alleged entry into license agreementswith guaranteed minimums the Company allegedly knew it was unableto meet; and (iv) allegedly poor performance of the Monsuno andWinx lines of products after their launch.

The First Amended Complaint also alleged violations of Section20(a) of the Exchange Act by Messrs. Berman and Bennett. The FirstAmended Complaint sought compensatory and other damages in anundisclosed amount as well as attorneys' fees and pre-judgment andpost-judgment interest.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the First Amended Complainton February 17, 2014, and the motion was granted, with leave toreplead.

A Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") was filed on July 8, 2014 andit set forth similar allegations to those in the First AmendedComplaint about discrepancies between internal projections andpublic forecasts and the other allegations except that the claimwith respect to guaranteed minimums that the Company allegedlyknew it was unable to meet was eliminated.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the SAC and that motion wasgranted with leave to replead. A Third Amended Complaint ("TAC")was filed on March 23, 2015 with similar allegations. The Companyfiled a motion to dismiss the TAC and that motion was argued onJuly 22, 2015; after argument it was taken on submission and adecision has not been issued.

"The Company believes that the claims in the Class Action arewithout merit, and it intends to defend vigorously against them.However, because the Class Action is in a preliminary stage, theCompany cannot assure you as to its outcome, or that an adversedecision in such action would not have a material adverse effecton our business, financial condition or results of operations,"the Company said.

KERYX BIOPHARMACEUTICALS: 4 Class Suits vs. D&Os Filed------------------------------------------------------Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016,for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that fourpurported class action lawsuits have been filed against theCompany and certain of its current and former officers.

"The Jackson complaint purports to be brought on behalf ofstockholders who purchased our common stock between February 25,2016 and August 1, 2016, the Erickson complaint purports to bebrought on behalf of stockholders who purchased our common stockbetween March 2, 2016 and July 29, 2016, and the King complaintpurports to be brought on behalf of stockholders who purchased ourstock between February 25, 2016 and July 29, 2016.

"On August 26, 2016, the fourth complaint, captioned Tim Karth v.Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No. 1:16-cv-11745, wasfiled in the United States District Court for the District ofMassachusetts. The Karth complaint purports to be brought onbehalf of stockholders who purchased our stock between September2, 2013 and August 1, 2016.

"Each complaint generally alleges that we and certain of ourofficers violated Sections 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the Exchange Actand Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making allegedly falseand/or misleading statements concerning the Company and itsbusiness operations and future prospects in light of the August 1,2016 announcement of an imminent interruption in our supply ofAuryxia. Each complaint seeks unspecified damages, interest,attorneys' fees, and other costs.

"We deny any allegations of wrongdoing and intend to vigorouslydefend against these lawsuits. There is no assurance, however,that we or the other defendants will be successful in our defenseof either of these lawsuits or that insurance will be available oradequate to fund any settlement or judgment or the litigationcosts of these actions. Moreover, we are unable to predict theoutcome or reasonably estimate a range of possible losses at thistime. A resolution of these lawsuits adverse to us or the otherdefendants, however, could have a material effect on our financialposition and results of operations in the period in which theparticular lawsuit is resolved."

KOREA TIMES: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, "Kim" Suit Claims---------------------------------------------------------------Kon J. Kim, individually and on behalf of all similarly situatedv. The Korea Times of Los Angeles, Inc., The Korea Times of SanFrancisco, Inc., and Does 1 through 25, Inclusive, Case No.BC643503 (Cal. Super. Ct., December 9, 2016), is brought againstthe Defendants for failure to pay the minimum wage and overtimewage rate in violation of the California Labor Code.

The Korea Times of Los Angeles, Inc. and The Korea Times of SanFrancisco, Inc. are publishers of Korean language Monday-Saturdaynewspaper in California.

LEGGETT & PLATT: Indirect Purchasers Win Bid to Sanction Objector-----------------------------------------------------------------The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio granteda motion for sanctions against an objector filed by indirectpurchaser class plaintiffs in the polyurethane foam productslitigation, according to Leggett & Platt, Incorporated's Nov. 8,2016, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and ExchangeCommission for the quarter ended September 30, 2016.

The Company said, "We reached a tentative settlement in the U.S.Indirect Class Action cases on May 18, 2015, by agreeing to pay anamount not materially different from the amount previously accruedfor this claim. We continue to deny all allegations in the cases,but settled the indirect purchaser class cases to avoid the risk,uncertainty, expense and distraction of litigation. The Courtpreliminarily approved the class settlement on July 31, 2015. Thefull settlement amount was paid into escrow in the third quarterof 2015. The final settlement approval hearing was held onDecember 15, 2015 and the Court granted final approval of thesettlement."

Several objectors filed notices of appeal of the order approvingthe class settlement to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. OnApril 14, 2016, the Court ordered the objectors to post an appealbond by May 13, 2016. Certain of the objectors filed a motion toreconsider or stay the bond order, which the Court denied on May12, 2016. Subsequently, three of the five objectors voluntarilydismissed their appeals. On June 20, 2016, the Sixth Circuitdismissed the remaining two appeals, one for failure to post anappeal bond, and the other because it was untimely filed.

One of the two objectors filed a petition for rehearing en banc(requesting that all judges rather than the normal 3 rule on theappeal) on June 29, 2016. That petition was denied on September27, 2016 and, on October 3, 2016, the Sixth Circuit stated that itwould take no action on the objector's request to stay its rulingor any mandate. On September 27, 2016, the indirect purchaserclass plaintiffs filed a motion for sanctions against the objectorin District Court, which was granted on October 24, 2016.

Leggett & Platt, Incorporated, is a diversified manufacturer, andmember of the S&P 500 index, that conceives, designs, and producesa wide range of engineered components and products found in manyhomes, offices, automobiles, and commercial airplanes. TheCompany makes components that are often hidden within, butintegral to, its customers' products.

LEGGETT & PLATT: Must Attend Mediation in Polyurethane Foam MDL---------------------------------------------------------------The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio orderedall parties in the indirect purchaser class action in thepolyurethane foam antitrust multidistrict litigation to attendnon-binding mediation, Leggett & Platt, Incorporated, said in itsForm 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission onNovember 8, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30,2016.

The Company said, "We were named as a defendant in an indirectpurchaser class consolidated amended complaint filed on March 21,2011 and were subsequently sued in an indirect purchaser classaction case filed on May 23, 2011, in the U.S. District Court forthe Northern District of Ohio under the name In re: PolyurethaneFoam Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:10-MD-2196. The plaintiffs,on behalf of themselves and/or a class of indirect purchasers,brought damages claims under various states' antitrust andconsumer protection statutes, and were seeking three times anamount of damages allegedly suffered as a result of allegedovercharges in the price of polyurethane foam products from atleast 1999 to the present. Each plaintiff also sought attorneyfees, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, court costs, andinjunctive relief against future violations."

The Company denied all allegations. The Ohio Court ordered allparties to attend non-binding mediation with a mediator of theirchoosing.

Leggett & Platt, Incorporated, is a diversified manufacturer, andmember of the S&P 500 index, that conceives, designs, and producesa wide range of engineered components and products found in manyhomes, offices, automobiles, and commercial airplanes. TheCompany makes components that are often hidden within, butintegral to, its customers' products.

LEPAGE BAKERIES: Reached $1.25MM Class Action Settlement--------------------------------------------------------Flowers Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016, for thequarterly period ended October 8, 2016, that Flowers Foods'subsidiary, Lepage Bakeries, on November 8, 2016, reached anagreement to settle a lawsuit seeking class action treatment(Bokanoski et al. v. Lepage Bakeries Park Street, LLC and CK SalesCo., LLC), originally filed by Bart Bokanoski and certain otherplaintiffs in the U.S. District Court for the District ofConnecticut on January 6, 2015, for $1.25 million, includingattorneys' fees. The settlement also includes certain non-economicterms which are intended to strengthen and enhance the independentcontractor model. This agreement, which includes 49 territories,is subject to court approval.

Defendant LICE TROOPERS INC. provides head lice removal servicesin several lice treatment centers, located throughout Miami-DadeCounty areas. Defendant also provides in home inspections andtreatment services, as well as school and camp screenings.

On June 30, 2016, Lionsgate and Starz entered into an Agreementand Plan of Merger under which Lionsgate will acquire Starz for acombination of cash and common stock totaling approximately $4.4billion enterprise value. Under the terms of the Merger Agreement,immediately prior to consummation of the proposed merger,Lionsgate will effect the reclassification of its capital stock,pursuant to which each existing Lionsgate common share will beconverted into 0.5 shares of a newly issued class of LionsgateClass A voting shares and 0.5 shares of a newly issued class ofLionsgate Class B non-voting shares, subject to the terms andconditions of the Merger Agreement.

Between July 19, 2016 and August 30, 2016, seven putative classaction complaints were filed by purported Starz stockholders inthe Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware: Freedman v.Malone, et al., C.A. No. 12571-VCG; Oklahoma Police Pension &Retirement System v. Malone, et al., C.A. No. 12584-VCG; TheFiremen's Retirement System of St. Louis v. Malone, et al., C.A.No. 12596-VCG; City of Cambridge Retirement System v. Malone, etal., C.A. No. 12598-VCG; Norfolk County Retirement System v.Malone, et al., C.A. No. 12599-VCG; City of Providence v. Starz,et al., C.A. No. 12604; and Teamsters Local 170 Pension Fund v.Lions Gate Entertainment Corp., et al., C.A. No. 12705. Thecomplaints name as defendants the members of the board ofdirectors of Starz, Dr. Malone and Mr. Bennett, as well as LionsGate and Merger Sub. Some of the complaints also name asdefendants Starz, Leslie Malone, The Tracey L. Neal Trust A, TheEvan D. Malone Trust A, Deborah J. Bennett, Hilltop Investments,LLC ("Hilltop"), Dr. Rachesky and LionTree. The complaints allege,among other things, that the members of the Starz board ofdirectors breached fiduciary duties owed to Starz and the holdersof Starz Series A common stock in connection with the merger andthe transactions contemplated by the merger agreement; that Dr.Malone (and, in one action, Mr. Bennett) is a controllingstockholder who breached fiduciary duties owed to other Starzstockholders in connection with the merger (and, in certain of theactions, by entering into the exchange agreement); and that someor all of Starz, Lions Gate, Merger Sub, The Tracey L. Neal TrustA, The Evan D. Malone Trust A, Deborah J. Bennett, Hilltop, andLionTree aided and abetted such breaches of fiduciary duty. Someor all of the complaints seek, among other relief, rescission ofthe proposed merger, an injunction to prevent the merger fromproceeding, a judgment declaring the exchange agreement is invalidand void, damages, and/or attorneys' fees.

The actions have been consolidated into In re Starz StockholderLitigation, Consolidated C.A. No. 12584-VCG, and the plaintiffs inthe consolidated action filed a verified consolidated class actioncomplaint on August 16, 2016. On August 18, 2016, plaintiffs inthe consolidated action filed a motion for expedited proceedings.On September 22, 2016, the court denied the motion.

LIONS GATE: Faces "Gross" Merger-Related Class Suit in Colorado---------------------------------------------------------------Lions Gate Entertainment Corp. is facing a merger-relatedstockholder class action lawsuit in Colorado, the Company said inits Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission onNovember 8, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30,2016.

On June 30, 2016, Lionsgate and Starz entered into an Agreementand Plan of Merger under which Lionsgate will acquire Starz for acombination of cash and common stock totaling approximately $4.4billion enterprise value. Under the terms of the Merger Agreement,immediately prior to consummation of the proposed merger,Lionsgate will effect the reclassification of its capital stock,pursuant to which each existing Lionsgate common share will beconverted into 0.5 shares of a newly issued class of LionsgateClass A voting shares and 0.5 shares of a newly issued class ofLionsgate Class B non-voting shares, subject to the terms andconditions of the Merger Agreement.

On August 9, 2016, a putative class action complaint was filed bya purported Starz stockholder in the District Court for the Cityand County of Denver, Colorado: Gross v. John C. Malone, et al.,2016-CV-32873. The complaint names as defendants the members ofthe board of directors of Starz, Dr. Malone and Mr. Bennett, aswell as Lions Gate and Merger Sub. The complaint alleges, amongother things, that the members of the Starz board of directorsbreached fiduciary duties owed to Starz and the holders of StarzSeries A common stock in connection with the merger and thetransactions contemplated by the merger agreement, and that Dr.Malone, Mr. Bennett, Lions Gate, and Merger Sub aided and abettedsuch breaches of fiduciary duty.

LIONS GATE: "Levy" Suit in New York Challenges Merger With Starz----------------------------------------------------------------Lions Gate Entertainment Corp. is facing a merger-related putativeclass action lawsuit commenced in the Supreme Court of the Stateof New York for the County of Nassau, according to the Company'sNovember 8, 2016, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities andExchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2016.

On June 30, 2016, Lionsgate and Starz entered into an Agreementand Plan of Merger under which Lionsgate will acquire Starz for acombination of cash and common stock totaling approximately $4.4billion enterprise value. Under the terms of the Merger Agreement,immediately prior to consummation of the proposed merger,Lionsgate will effect the reclassification of its capital stock,pursuant to which each existing Lionsgate common share will beconverted into 0.5 shares of a newly issued class of LionsgateClass A voting shares and 0.5 shares of a newly issued class ofLionsgate Class B non-voting shares, subject to the terms andconditions of the Merger Agreement.

On October 7, 2016, a putative class action complaint was filed bya purported Lions Gate stockholder in the Supreme Court of theState of New York for the County of Nassau: Levy v. Malone, etal., Index No. 607759/2016. The complaint names as defendantsLions Gate and the members of its board of directors. Thecomplaint alleges, among other things, that the members of theLions Gate board of directors breached fiduciary duties owed toLions Gate stockholders and/or aided and abetted breaches offiduciary duties by others in connection with the proposed merger,and that Lions Gate and the members of its board of directorsfailed to disclose material information in the amended joint proxystatement/prospectus on Form S-4/A filed on September 7, 2016 inconnection with the proposed merger. Defendants believe that thecomplaints are without merit and intend to defend the actionsvigorously.

MAGICJACK VOCALTEC: New York Class Action at Preliminary Stage--------------------------------------------------------------Magicjack Vocaltec Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016, forthe quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that a class actionlawsuit in New York is at a preliminary stage.

On March 11, 2016, a purported class action lawsuit was filedagainst the Company, its Chief Executive Officer, Gerald Vento("Mr. Vento"), and its Chief Financial Officer, Jose Gordo ("Mr.Gordo"), in the United States District Court for the SouthernDistrict of New York. The complaint alleges that the Company andMessrs. Vento and Gordo made false and misleading statementsregarding the financial performance and guidance during thealleged class period of November 12, 2013 to March 12, 2014. Thecomplaint alleges that the Company and Messrs. Vento and Gordoviolated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Thecomplaint seeks damages, attorneys' fees and costs, andequitable/injunctive relief or such other relief as the courtdeems proper.

The Company intends to vigorously defend itself against it and theCompany does not believe that the outcome of this legal proceedingwill have a material adverse effect on the Company's business,operating results, financial condition or cash flows. Because thecase is at a preliminary stage, the Company cannot estimate thelikelihood of liability or the amount of potential damages, ifany.

magicJack VocalTec Ltd. and its subsidiaries is a cloudcommunications leader that is the inventor of the magicJackdevices and other magicJack products and services.

MAINSOURCE FINANCIAL: Awaits Approval of Merger Suits Settlement----------------------------------------------------------------MainSource Financial Group, Inc., awaits approval of itssettlement to resolve merger-related lawsuits, according to theCompany's November 8, 2016, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September30, 2016.

On May 20, 2016, the Company acquired 100% of the outstandingcommon shares of Cheviot Financial Corp. ("Cheviot") and itssubsidiary Cheviot Savings Bank in exchange for stock and cash.

The amended consolidated complaint alleges, among other things,that the directors of Cheviot breached their fiduciary duties ofdue care, independence, good faith and fair dealing to thestockholders of Cheviot, that the consideration to be received bythe stockholders is inadequate and undervalues Cheviot, that theMerger Agreement includes improper deal-protection devices thatpurportedly lock up the Merger and may operate to prevent otherbidders from making successful competing offers for Cheviot, thatthe deal protection devices unreasonably inhibit the ability ofthe directors of Cheviot to act with respect to investigating andpursuing superior proposals and alternatives and that the MergerAgreement involves conflicts of interest. The complaint furtheralleges that Cheviot and MainSource aided and abetted the allegedbreaches of fiduciary duty by the directors of Cheviot. Theamended consolidated complaint also alleges that the registrationstatement on Form S-4, initially filed with the Securities andExchange Commission (the "SEC") on February 11, 2016 in connectionwith the Merger, provides materially misleading and incompleteinformation rendering the stockholders of Cheviot unable to makean informed decision with respect to the Merger.

On April 21, 2016, defendants and lead plaintiffs entered into amemorandum of understanding ("MOU"), which provides for thesettlement of the Actions. The settlement contemplated by the MOUis subject to confirmatory discovery and customary conditions,including court approval following notice to Cheviot'sstockholders. If the settlement is finally approved by the court,it will resolve and release all claims by stockholders of Cheviotchallenging any aspect of the merger, the merger agreement, andany disclosure made in connection therewith. The terms of thesettlement were disclosed to former Cheviot stockholders pursuantto a Notice mailed on September 27, 2016. The court is scheduledto consider the final settlement at a hearing to be held onDecember 2, 2016.

The Company does not anticipate a material financial impact as aresult of the Actions, the MOU, or the settlement.

MainSource Financial Group, Inc., is a financial holding companywhose principal activity is the ownership and management of itssubsidiary bank, MainSource Bank headquartered in Greensburg,Indiana. Through its non-bank affiliates, the Company providesservices incidental to the business of banking.

"They're my clients, I love them, even though they're angry atme," the prominent Windsor class-action lawyer said, as a Dec. 7deadline loomed for the 1,202 members of the diluted chemo lawsuitto either opt out (and sue independently) or submit a letter ofobjection. He said he understands the anger over the meagre sizeof the proposed payout, which would amount to as little as $1,500per victim. But the evidence simply wasn't there, he said, toprove that the diluted cancer drugs harmed them.

"But it's a great settlement because in comparison to nothing,it's a lot better than nothing."

Superior Court Justice Gregory Verbeem will decide Jan. 10 whetherto approve the settlement, and Mr. Strosberg said the judge willtake into account the letters of objection. He may decide to hearfrom some of the writers, who are upset not only with the $1.8-million payout to victims, but also with the $400,000 fee forlawyers.

"The judge will say it's a reasonable fee or it's not a reasonablefee, he can say 'I'll not approve the settlement,' and then we'llbe back to square one," Mr. Strosberg said. "That's his job."

The class-action members, including 290 adult cancer patients fromWindsor, were administered chemo that was mistakenly diluted sothey received seven to 10 per cent less drugs than prescribed. Anexpert hired by the Ontario government concluded that the impacton patients, given the fact these diluted drugs were oftencombined with other cancer-killing drugs, was small. There havebeen 71 deaths so far out of the 290 Windsor patients.

"We started this action and the science, it dictated the result,we're not magicians," Mr. Strosberg said. "We had to get anexpert saying that the reduction in the treatment at 10 per centcaused people to die or people getting sicker and we couldn't dothat. The evidence was not there."

He said the anxiety and fear people suffered isn't compensable,unless it gets to the point where they're diagnosed with apsychiatric condition. In such a case, the person should probablyopt out of the class action and pursue an individual lawsuit, hesuggested.

Responding to criticism that the lawyers didn't listen to people'sstories, he said they heard many stories from many class members,but didn't hear from everyone. "It's counter productive for us toget everyone's story," he said.

The lawsuit alleges negligence by Mezentco Solutions Inc., betterknown as Marchese Hospital Solutions, the drug firm that suppliedseveral hospitals in Ontario and New Brunswick -- includingWindsor Regional Hospital -- with a premixed intravenouschemotherapy treatment. The hospitals along with Medbuy, aconsortium set up by hospitals to buy products in higher volumes,were added to the lawsuit recently.

If the settlement is approved, Medbuy, on behalf of itself and thehospitals, will together pay half the settlement, with Mezentcopaying the other half. Strosberg said insurance companies willcover the costs.

"People are angry and upset and rightly so, I understand. It'seasier to be angry with your lawyer when your lawyer says we'lllose."

MDC PARTNERS: Dismissal of Shareholder Suit Appealed to 2nd Cir.----------------------------------------------------------------The Lead Plaintiffs appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for theSecond Circuit the dismissal of their shareholder class actionlawsuit against MDC Partners Inc., the Company said in its Form10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November8, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016.

On July 31, 2015, North Collier Fire Control and Rescue DistrictFirefighter Pension Plan ("North Collier") filed a putative classaction suit in the Southern District of New York, naming asdefendants MDC, CFO David Doft, former CEO Miles Nadal, and formerCAO Mike Sabatino. On December 11, 2015, North Collier and co-leadplaintiff Plymouth County Retirement Association filed an amendedcomplaint, adding two additional defendants, Mitchell Gendel andMichael Kirby, a former member of MDC's Board of Directors. Theplaintiff alleges in the amended complaint violations of Section10(b), Rule 10b-5, and Section 20 of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934, based on allegedly materially false and misleadingstatements in the Company's SEC filings and other publicstatements regarding executive compensation, goodwill accounting,and the Company's internal controls.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint onFebruary 9, 2016, the lead plaintiffs filed an opposition to thatmotion on April 8, 2016, and the Company filed a reply brief onMay 9, 2016. By order granted on September 30, 2016, the U.S.District Court presiding over the case granted the Company'smotion to dismiss the plaintiffs' amended complaint in itsentirety with prejudice.

On November 2, 2016, the lead plaintiffs filed a notice to appealthe U.S. District Court's ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals forthe Second Circuit.

MDC Partners Inc. is one of the fastest-growing and mostinfluential marketing and communications networks in the world.The Company's 50+ advertising, public relations, media, branding,digital, social and event marketing agencies are responsible forsome of the most memorable and engaging campaigns for the world'smost respected brands.

On August 7, 2015, Roberto Paniccia issued a Statement of Claim inthe Ontario Superior Court of Justice in the City of Brantford,Ontario seeking to certify a class action suit naming thefollowing as defendants: MDC, former CEO Miles S. Nadal, formerCAO Michael C. Sabatino, CFO David Doft and BDO U.S.A. LLP. ThePlaintiff alleges violations of section 138.1 of the OntarioSecurities Act (and equivalent legislation in other Canadianprovinces and territories) as well as common law misrepresentationbased on allegedly materially false and misleading statements inthe Company's public statements, as well as omitting to disclosematerial facts with respect to the SEC investigation.

The Company says it intends to continue to vigorously defend thissuit. A case management judge has now been appointed but a datefor an initial case conference has not yet been set.

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

MDC Partners Inc. is one of the fastest-growing and mostinfluential marketing and communications networks in the world.The Company's 50+ advertising, public relations, media, branding,digital, social and event marketing agencies are responsible forsome of the most memorable and engaging campaigns for the world'smost respected brands.

MDL 2371: Appeal in UMS Patent Litigation Pending-------------------------------------------------j2 Global, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016, for thequarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that UMS and the j2Global affiliate's appeal in a multi-district litigation ispending.

On October 16, 2013, a j2 Global affiliate entered an appearanceas a plaintiff in a multi-district litigation pending in theNorthern District of Illinois (No. 1:12-cv-06286). In thislitigation, Unified Messaging Solutions, LLC ("UMS"), a companywith rights to assert certain patents owned by the j2 Globalaffiliate, has asserted five j2 Global patents against a number ofdefendants.

While claims against some defendants have been settled, otherdefendants have filed counterclaims for, among other things, non-infringement, unenforceability, and invalidity of the patents-in-suit.

On December 20, 2013, the Northern District of Illinois issued aclaim construction opinion and, on June 13, 2014, entered a finaljudgment of non-infringement for the remaining defendants based onthat claim construction.

UMS and the j2 Global affiliate filed a notice of appeal to theFederal Circuit on June 27, 2014 (No. 14-1611). The appeal ispending.

j2 Global, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, is a provider ofInternet services. Through its Business Cloud Services Division,the Company provides cloud services to businesses of all sizes,from individuals to enterprises, and licenses its intellectualproperty ("IP") to third parties. In addition, the Business CloudServices Division includes j2 Cloud Connect, which primarilyfocuses on our number-based voice and fax services. The DigitalMedia Division specializes in the technology, gaming,entertainment and lifestyle markets, reaching in-market buyers andinfluencers in both the consumer and business-to-business space.

MICROCHIP TECHNOLOGY: Appeal From Dismissal of LFR Suit Pending---------------------------------------------------------------The Plaintiffs' appeal from the denial of their motion for relieffrom the dismissal judgment in the lawsuit involving AtmelCorporation remains pending, Microchip Technology Incorporatedsaid in its Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on November 8, 2016, for the quarterly period endedSeptember 30, 2016.

On March 4, 2014, LFoundry Rousset ("LFR") and Jean-Yves Guerrini,individually and on behalf of a putative class of LFR employees,filed an action in the United States District Court for theSouthern District of New York (the "District Court") against theCompany's Atmel subsidiary, the Company's French subsidiary, AtmelRousset S.A.S. ("Atmel Rousset"), and LFoundry GmbH ("LF"), LFR'sGerman parent. The case purports to relate to Atmel Rousset's June2010 sale of its wafer manufacturing facility in Rousset, Franceto LF, and LFR's subsequent insolvency, and later liquidation,more than three years later. The District Court dismissed the caseon August 21, 2015, and the United States Court of Appeals for theSecond Circuit affirmed the dismissal on June 27, 2016.

On July 25, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal from theDistrict Court's June 27, 2016 denial of their motion for relieffrom the dismissal judgment.

On May 11, 2016, an Amended and Consolidated Class ActionComplaint ("Complaint") was filed in the United States DistrictCourt for the Southern District of Florida (Miami Division)against Atmel, Continental Automotive Systems, Inc., Honda MotorCo., Ltd. and an affiliate, and Daimler AG and an affiliate. TheComplaint which includes claims arising under federal law andFlorida, California, New Jersey, Michigan and Louisiana state lawalleges that class members unknowingly purchased or leasedvehicles containing defective airbag control units (incorporatingallegedly defective application specific integrated circuitsmanufactured by the Company's Atmel subsidiary between 2006 and2010), and thereby suffered financial harm, including a loss inthe value of their purchased or leased vehicles. The plaintiffsare seeking, individually and on behalf of a putative class,unspecified compensatory and exemplary damages, statutorypenalties, pre- and post-judgment interest, attorneys' fees, andinjunctive and other relief.

NAT'L RESEARCH: Faces Class Action Over Water Contamination-----------------------------------------------------------Julie Ireton, writing for CBC News, reports that a group ofMississippi Mills residents is suing the National Research Councilfor more than $40 million after residential wells werecontaminated by chemicals originating from an NRC fire lab intheir neighbourhood.

It's been almost a year since homeowners living near the firesafety testing facility on Ramsay Concession Road 8 in MississippiMills were told their water was contaminated and they should stopdrinking it.

The water contained the chemicals often found in firefightingfoams -- chemicals that were tested in the NRC lab.

In July, the NRC confirmed perfluoroalkylated substances, or PFAS,found in several, nearby residential wells had originated from itslab. Health Canada notes that studies on animals show "highlevels of PFAS have been linked with negative health effects . . .including liver damage and impacts on neurological development."

Lawsuit claims NRC was negligent

Residents dealing with the contamination said they were havingtrouble getting answers from the NRC, so they hired MichaelHebert, an environmental lawyer with Beament, Hebert andNicholson.

Mr. Hebert has since filed a statement of claim in what isexpected to become a class-action lawsuit, one that couldeventually include some 70 nearby residents.

The four plaintiffs in the case claim the NRC breached severalenvironmental protection laws, was negligent in the use, handling,application, storage and disposal of contaminants and is "strictlyliable for the escape" of those contaminants.

The claim calls for the NRC to "completely eliminate all traces ofcontaminants and that the defendant must pay the cost of doingso."

The $40 million the plaintiffs request in damages is for"remediation costs, engineering and other professional costs,financing costs and diminution in value of the properties of theplaintiffs and the other class members."

The claim also includes $2 million in punitive damages.

None of the claims in the class-action have been tested in court.

NRC yet to file statement of defence

"We had a fair number of people who signed up early on in theprocess," said Mr. Hebert. "We decided the only way to tackle theproblem was to proceed by way of class-action."

Hebert said his office is waiting for the federal government tofile its statement of defence and provide the many documents,studies and test results his clients and his firm have requested.

"There's so many reports that were done that are missing. Theyhave guards guarding the facility. It's quite secretive -- it hasbeen to date anyway," said Mr. Hebert, who added that his firm hadasked to take samples when the NRC was carrying out a soilremediation program on its property, but it was not allowed.

A spokesperson with the NRC told CBC News they've been "informedof legal action surrounding the National Fire Research Laboratory.We are in the process of reviewing the claim and will beresponding at the appropriate time."

Residents to get bottled water until at least 2018

But Mr. Hebert said lawyers from the federal justice departmentare representing the NRC and have asked for an extension to file astatement of defence.

Last month, the National Research Council said it will continuesampling and testing drinking water, maintaining water filtrationsystems and providing bottled water to neighbouring residentsuntil the fall of 2018 at the earliest.

"I know there was a significant period of time that this has beenon-going and the people were only notified and preventative stepstaken as of last December and this facility has been operatingsince about 1981," said Mr. Hebert.

"There's so many substances out there that aren't even accountedfor. It's an important case."

NESTLE USA: "Ross" Suit Alleges Deceptive Marketing of Meals------------------------------------------------------------COURTNEY ROSS, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,Plaintiff, v. NESTLE USA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-09563(S.D.N.Y., December 12, 2016), was filed for the alleged deceptivepractice by Defendant of marketing its Lean Cuisine(R) frozenmeals as having "No Preservatives" when many of them containcitric acid (2-hydroxypropane-1,2,3-tricarboxylic acid), a well-known preservative commonly used in commercial food and drinkproducts.

Defendant develops, markets and sells food products under the LeanCuisine(R) brand name throughout the United States.

NEWELL BRANDS: "Paree" Class Suit Remains Stayed in Florida-----------------------------------------------------------Newell Brands Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on November 8, 2016, for the quarterlyperiod ended September 30, 2016, that the putative class actionlawsuit filed by Jessica Paree remains stayed in Florida.

On April 15, 2016, Jarden Corporation became a direct wholly-ownedsubsidiary of Newell Brands, as a result of a series of mergertransactions (the "Jarden Acquisition"). The Jarden Acquisitionwas effected pursuant to an Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated asof December 13, 2015 between the Company, Jarden and two wholly-owned subsidiaries of the Company. Following the JardenAcquisition, the Company was renamed Newell Brands Inc. Jarden isa leading, global consumer products company with leading brandssuch as Yankee Candle(R), Crock-Pot(R), FoodSaver(R), Mr.Coffee(R), Oster(R), Coleman(R), First Alert(R), Rawlings(R),Jostens(R), K2(R), Marker(R), Marmot(R), Volkl(R) and many others.

A putative class action lawsuit (Jessica Paree v. Martin E.Franklin, et al (Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Districtin and for Palm Beach County, Florida)) was filed on March 10,2016, purportedly on behalf of Jarden stockholders, against theindividually named director defendants, all of whom were directorsof Jarden. The Company and two of its subsidiaries are also namedas defendants. The complaint generally alleges that the directordefendants breached their fiduciary duties owed to Jardenstockholders regarding the merger consideration agreed to and theprocess undertaken by the director defendants in connection withthe Jarden transaction, and that the Company and two of itssubsidiaries aided and abetted such breaches. Plaintiff furtheralleges that defendants have (i) solicited stockholder actionpursuant to a materially false and misleading joint proxystatement/prospectus, (ii) failed to include all materialinformation concerning the unfair sales process that resulted inthe merger transactions, and (iii) materially omitted certaininformation related to the financial analyses performed byJarden's financial advisor. Plaintiff seeks, among other things,preliminary and permanent injunctive relief enjoining the mergertransactions, rescission or rescissory damages in the event theJarden transaction is consummated, an award of attorneys' andexperts' fees and costs, and a direction from the court thatJarden's individual board members account for all damagesallegedly suffered as a result of their alleged wrongdoing.

On March 28, 2016, the parties filed an Agreed Joint Motion toStay Proceedings, seeking a stay of the litigation, pending theoutcome of the Hirsch v. Lillie action. The court entered an orderstaying the proceedings on March 31, 2016, and the case remainsstayed at this time, per the parties' request.

NEWELL BRANDS: Voluntarily Dismissed From "Hirsch" Class Suit-------------------------------------------------------------Newell Brands Inc. and its subsidiaries have been voluntarilydismissed from the purported class action lawsuit filed by VincentA. Hirsch, the Company said in its Form 10-Q filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2016, for thequarterly period ended September 30, 2016.

On April 15, 2016, Jarden Corporation became a direct wholly-ownedsubsidiary of Newell Brands, as a result of a series of mergertransactions (the "Jarden Acquisition"). The Jarden Acquisitionwas effected pursuant to an Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated asof December 13, 2015 between the Company, Jarden and two wholly-owned subsidiaries of the Company. Following the JardenAcquisition, the Company was renamed Newell Brands Inc. Jarden isa leading, global consumer products company with leading brandssuch as Yankee Candle(R), Crock-Pot(R), FoodSaver(R), Mr.Coffee(R), Oster(R), Coleman(R), First Alert(R), Rawlings(R),Jostens(R), K2(R), Marker(R), Marmot(R), Volkl(R) and many others.

A putative class action lawsuit (Vincent A. Hirsch v. James E.Lillie, Martin E. Franklin, Ian G.H. Ashken, Michael S. Gross,Robert L. Wood, Irwin D. Simon, William P. Lauder, RosL'esperance, Peter A. Hochfelder, Newell Rubbermaid Inc., NCPFAcquisition Corp. I and NCPF Acquisition Corp. II, Case No. 9:16-CV-80258 (United States District Court for the Southern Districtof Florida)) was filed on February 24, 2016, purportedly on behalfof Jarden shareholders against the individually named directordefendants, who were directors of Jarden. The Company and itssubsidiaries NCPF Acquisition Corp. I and NCPF Acquisition Corp.II were also named as defendants. The Complaint alleges claimsunder Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, asamended (the "Exchange Act"), SEC Rule 14a-9 against alldefendants, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against theindividual director defendants. Plaintiff alleges that the jointproxy/prospectus of the Company and Jarden concerning the proposedmerger contemplated by the Merger Agreement omitted certaininformation.

In March 2016, the parties entered into a settlement term sheet,pursuant to which the Company added certain disclosures to itsRegistration Statement on Form S-4. Thereafter, on July 19, 2016,the parties executed a Stipulation of Settlement, and the leadplaintiff and lead counsel contemporaneously filed an UnopposedMotion for Preliminary Approval of the Proposed Class ActionSettlement. That motion was later withdrawn, and lead counsel hasfiled a motion to appoint new lead counsel. The Company and itssubsidiaries have subsequently been voluntarily dismissed from theaction. The action remains pending against the individualdefendants.

-- Motion to Appoint Matthew Atkinson and Richard Miller as Lead Plaintiff, and

-- Motion to Appoint Vittorio Franceschi to serve as lead plaintiff(s) and approve the selection of lead counsel.

Northern Oil And Gas, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016, forthe quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that, "On August18, 2016, plaintiff Jeffrey Fries, individually and on behalf ofall others similarly situated, filed a class action complaint inthe United States District Court for the Southern District of NewYork against our company, Michael Reger (our former chiefexecutive officer), and Thomas Stoelk (our chief financial officerand interim chief executive officer) as defendants. The complaintpurports to bring a federal securities class action on behalf of aclass of persons who acquired the company's securities betweenMarch 1, 2013 and August 15, 2016, and seeks to recover damagescaused by defendants' alleged violations of the federal securitieslaws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(a) and 20(a) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgatedthereunder."

Northern Oil and Gas, Inc., a Minnesota corporation, is anindependent energy company engaged in the acquisition,exploration, exploitation, development and production of crude oiland natural gas properties. The Company's common stock trades onthe NYSE MKT market under the symbol "NOG".

ORTHOTOUCH: Georgiou Accused of Hijacking Highveld Class Action---------------------------------------------------------------Ryk van Niekerk, writing for Moneyweb, reports that in a mostbizarre turn of events, the Highveld Syndication Action Group(HSAG) has accused property magnate Nic Georgiou of attempting to"hijack" an imminent class action suit against him by "buying off"the six applicants in the case.

These six individuals were representatives of the 7 000 HSAGinvestors and their applications to institute a class actionagainst Georgiou and the application to rescind the Orthotouchscheme of arrangement was funded by the financial contributions oftheir fellow HSAG members.

The HSAG claims in court papers that Georgiou approached the sixindividuals and paid them money to settle their claims against himand Orthotouch. The six then proceeded in terms of thetransaction to secretly-appointed new attorneys and applied to theJohannesburg High Court to withdraw their original application.

If this withdrawal application succeeds it will mean the end ofthe class action, as the HSAG would not be able to bring a newapplication because the prescribed time period to bring such anapplication has lapsed.

From the court papers it is not apparent how much Georgiou paidthe six applicants.

HSAG response

In a strongly-worded affidavit Jacques Theron, the HSAG's attorneyof record, says this happened behind the HSAG and legal team'sback and is a "deliberate stratagem" of Georgiou to "thwart theclass action".

"The attempted withdrawal of the application and the aim tosabotage the class action is not only an offence against the basicprinciples and very purpose of a class action, but also againstthe legal provisions, as set out in Section 38(c) of theConstitution of South Africa."

Ms. Theron emphasises that the six individuals were chosen tomerely represent disgruntled investors who wanted to have thecontroversial Orthotouch scheme of arrangement in 2014 rescindedand to institute a class action against Mr. Georgiou. They werecarefully chosen to represent the other investors and their legalfees were paid by financial contributions of the 7 000 HSAGmembers.

He adds that the six did not know each other and that it is "not acoincidence" that they went to the same attorney to file theirnotice of withdrawal applications.

Ms. Theron also claims that Mr. Georgiou admitted to the HSAGsteering committee that he settled the claims of the sixapplicants during a meeting in Mossel Bay, but that he only becameaware of what was going on when the notice of withdrawal wasserved.

Moneyweb offered Mr. Georgiou an opportunity to respond to theallegations, but he had not replied by the time of publishing.

Mr. Georgiou to repay Highveld Syndication 21 and 22 investors

The latest revelations come after the Supreme Court of Appeal(SCA) denied Mr. Georgiou leave to appeal against a previousjudgment that ordered him to repay investors of the HighveldSyndication 21 and 22 companies.

These investors signed different contracts with Mr. Georgiou whichcontained a buyback clause that was not honoured.Mr. Georgiou will now have to repay around R30 million to 46investors and open the door for the other investors in theseschemes to institute similar claims.

Not the first time

This is not the first time Georgiou has approached key individualsand investors that form part of the HSAG. Earlier this year itbecame apparent that Elna Visagie and Herman Lombaard, previouslytwo of the most active campaigners of the class action and membersof the HSAG, were approached byMr. Georgiou and accepted employment at Orthotouch. They areapparently earning salaries as high as R100 000 a month.

PERSONNEL STAFFING: Faces Hiring Discrimination Class Action------------------------------------------------------------Liam Stack, writing for The New York Times, reports that a groupof African-American workers filed a class-action lawsuit infederal court on Dec. 6 against a nationwide job placement agencyand several of its clients, accusing them of discriminatingagainst black applicants by favoring Hispanic applicants.

The lawsuit, filed in United States District Court for theNorthern District of Illinois, alleges that the agency, MVPStaffing, used a range of discriminatory practices, including codewords for job applicants of different races, to honor the requestsof corporate clients who refused to employ African-Americans intemporary positions. The company operates about 60 offices in 38states.

The suit accuses the company of eight counts of racialdiscrimination based on the operations of its office in Cicero,Ill. A phone message and an email seeking comment from MVPStaffing on Dec. 5 were not returned, and a person who answeredthe phone on Dec. 6 declined to comment.

The other companies named in the suit are also in the Chicagoarea. They are Personnel Staffing Group, the Segerdahl Group,Mercury Plastics Inc., Jet Lithocolor, The Penray Companies Inc.,WestRock Consumer Packaging Group, AGI Media, Lawrence Foods Inc.and the Blommer Chocolate Company.

Representatives at Mercury, Personnel and WestRock declined tocomment on Dec. 6; the others did not respond to requests.

Joe Sellers, the lead lawyer for the plaintiffs, said he believedthat racial discrimination was widespread in the staffingindustry, which connects job seekers with employment that is oftentemporary.

"What we have seen in this industry is that this is a morewidespread phenomenon than what we have just found in this case,with this company," Mr. Sellers said. "The staffing agenciesfollow the requests made by the client companies even if theyhappen to be ones that might exclude people based on race."

Mr. Sellers said there were several other anti-discriminationclass-action lawsuits in process against staffing agencies andtheir client companies in Illinois. The agencies "do the biddingof the employers on whose behalf they are reviewing candidates,"he said. "It is a process readily susceptible to abuse."

Catherine Ruckelshaus, general counsel for the National EmploymentLaw Project, said the discriminatory practices alleged at staffingagencies were "a microcosm of the problem that's happening acrossour economy."

"Companies have figured out that if they outsource theirrecruiting and hiring, and what's often considered to be the messyparts of their H.R. function, that they can then absolvethemselves of any liability," Ms. Ruckelshaus said. That hitslow-wage minority workers the hardest because of "entrenched andpersistent discrimination," she said.

Kevin James, 29, one of the named plaintiffs in the suit, said hehad applied for work through MVP on roughly 20 occasions but hadbeen given a job only once. He sat in the MVP office waiting invain while Hispanic applicants got assignments, he said.

On the one occasion when Mr. James was given a job, he said, hewas sent to a packaging company where supervisors were hostiletoward him, "hovering" over him and other black employees as theyworked.

"It just seemed like a lot of tension, like they didn't reallywant me to be there," Mr. James said. He added that the staff ofthe MVP office in Cicero "was mainly Mexicans" and that theemployees were not welcoming toward African-American job seekers.

"I'd say the whole staff was Mexican," he said. "It was like thewhole thing was built up mainly around Hispanics."

Rosa Ceja, 29, a former dispatcher at MVP's office in ElmwoodPark, Ill., said the company used a system of code words in anattempt to conceal its preferential treatment of Hispanics. Shesaid her work often took her to the Cicero office, where the samesystem was in place.

Ms. Ceja said MVP employees referred to African-American and whitejob applicants as "guapos," which means "handsome ones" inSpanish, and to Hispanics as "feos," or "ugly ones."

"They said African-Americans wanted to keep their hands clean andnot get dirty and not work as hard as a Mexican -- that's why theycalled them guapos," she said. MVP employees were told that usingthe words "black" or "Mexican" instead of the code words,especially in an email, was a fireable offense.

The code words were in Spanish because "all of the managers" whorefused to hire African-Americans were Hispanic, Ms. Ceja said.Some would try to conceal their request by saying they wanted onlyemployees who listened to 107.9 FM, a Spanish-language radiostation in the Chicago area. "That was a code word for us to onlysend Mexicans," she said.

The vast majority of Hispanic job applicants served by MVP were inthe United States illegally, Ms. Ceja added, and theirvulnerability made them attractive short-term workers. "Thatmakes it harder for them to complain or do anything," she said."They are so scared to raise their voice and say, 'Hey, this isnot fair.'"

Ms. Ceja said MVP employees would start the day by separatingHispanic job applicants from African-Americans. They would enterthe Hispanic applicants' contact information into a database sothey could be easily reached when jobs opened up. African-American applicants rarely received the same treatment, she said:They were usually instructed to go to an MVP office at dawn towait for assignments that rarely came.

When African-Americans were given jobs, they were often marked"D.N.R." when they returned, short for "do not return" to theclient company, Ms. Ceja said. Dispatchers who sent African-Americans to a company that had asked not to be sent blackemployees would be reprimanded by their boss, she added.

"If it was 10 Mexicans that would come at 1:30 p.m., and 25African-Americans that were there at 4:30 a.m. and were waiting tobe sent to work, they would send the Mexicans first," she said.

PROGRESSIVE: Auto Body Shops' Class Action Can't Proceed--------------------------------------------------------John Huetter, writing for RND, reports that some Ohio collisionrepairers might have a more difficult time seeking class-actionlawsuits against insurers following a state Appellate Courtruling.

In Blue Ash Auto et al v. Progressive, a group of collisionrepairers had accused the insurer of tortiously interfering withtheir business by unilaterally dictating what labor rates andprocedures it'd reimburse. The auto body shops argued that thesemandates "do not necessarily allow for them to restore aninsured's car to its original, pre-loss condition and that thelimitations violate both Ohio law and Progressive's own insurancepolicies," as the Eighth District Court of Appeals summarized thecase.

Progressive, according to the appellate court's summary, said thatit was being competitive and DRP shops did the work under theterms other shops had criticized. (It should be noted that the DRPshops get a big perk in exchange for those discounts: Progressiverecommends them to its clients, allowing the repairers totheoretically recoup some of the costs through volume.)

The shops sought to recoup whatever parts and labor costs they hadto eat to serve Progressive customers and "declaratory relief inthe form of an order requiring Progressive to indemnify them fromany liability arising from their compliance with Progressive'srestrictions."

The Eighth District Appellate Court stressed that it wasn't rulingon whether or not the auto body shops' case was any good. Thedecision applied only to whether the shops met legal tests toexpand the case into a gigantic statewide class of basically anynon-DRP shop that touched a Progressive claim for the past 11years:

"All Ohio registered auto body repair shops, or registeredindividuals, with the exception of those members of Progressive'sDirect Repair Program that have performed physical auto bodyrepairs paid for directly or indirectly, partially or in full, byProgressive as a result of Automobile insurance policies issued byProgressive, from August 7, 2005 through present."

Ohio has seven rules plaintiffs need to meet before they getclass-action status. The Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleasruled that the auto body shops failed to satisfy all but three ofthese requirements, and the appellate court upheld the decisionDec. 1.

The trial court and appellate court both agreed that any reliefhad to apply to the entire class under the Rules of CivilProcedures, which states plaintiffs get class-action status when"the party opposing the class has acted or refused to act ongrounds generally applicable to the class, thereby makingappropriate final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratoryrelief with respect to the class as a whole."

According to the appellate court, this means that situations whereevery plaintiff would deserve different amounts of money andliability from a losing defendant couldn't count as a class-actionsuit. (For example, a shop that worked for a Progressive claimantonce during the class time versus one that did a lot of repairorders for the carrier.)

The trial court decided that the liability indemnification wasbasically incidental, while the shops had argued they wereseparate things: Liability immunity keeps the shops which repairedcars following Progressive's alleged "we don't pay for that" rulesfrom risking unknown future legal bills for the allegedlyinadequate work, while the monetary judgment helps the shops whichdid all the allegedly necessary work and ate the costs of anythingProgressive wouldn't reimburse, based on the shops' argument.

But the court ruled that both were sort of the same thing: coststhat shops had to eat because of something Progressive allegedlydid, regardless of if the costs were incurred during a repair orin a courtroom. Also, and "more importantly," according to thecourt, the Ohio Supreme Court had already ruled in a differentcase that "'claims for declaratory relief that merely lay afoundation for subsequent determinations regarding liability orthat facilitate an award of damages do not meet the requirementfor certification.'"

And there's the problem of teasing out what the actual effects ofProgressive's position were for each member of the proposed class,according to the appellate court ruling:

It is easy to understand the Supreme Court's hesitance to soextend Civ.R. 23(B)(2) class certifications where, as here,establishing the applicability of the desired indemnificationwould require a case-by-case analysis of facts pertinent to therepair. Whether Progressive rightfully or wrongfully refused topay for a particular service or part would need to be examined ineach instance of an allegedly faulty repair. A myriad of otherissues would also need to be resolved as well. Causation inparticular would be a case-by-case dispute that cannot be resolvedby the appellants desired relief. For example: Was the allegedlydefective repair in a particular incident due to Progressive'smandates or the body shop's own negligent labor performance withinthose mandates? Was the shop's desired service or part appropriateand necessary for each particular repair that is later deemedfaulty? How can the trial court deem that Progressive is alwaysliable when it and the shop diverge on the manner or type ofrepair to be performed without the individualized context of everypossible car repair that may occur? As the trial court noted, anyindemnification would be premised on an initial decision that theestimate provided by Progressive was inadequate based on theunique facts of each case. These issues simply cannot be resolvedon a class-wide basis with any finality without considering thefacts pertinent to a particular instance of negligent repair.

The Cuyahoga County Court also decided that the case didn't meetcourt rules that "the questions of law or fact common to themembers of the class predominate over any questions affecting onlyindividual members" and "a class action is superior to otheravailable methods" to handle the dispute.

The appellate court agreed, ruling that the case was simply toocase-by-case to work as a class-action.

"The trial court aptly pointed out that an individualized inquirywould be necessary for not just each potential class member, butevery separate instance where such class members conducted arepair under the alleged limitations imposed by Progressive,"Judge Eileen Gallagher wrote, with Judges Sean Gallagher andMary Boyle concurring. "The court would have to examine eachrepair and consider whether the additional services or parts thatProgressive allegedly denied to the particular class member werenecessary to restore the damaged vehicle in question to itspre-loss condition.

The shops had argued that everything Progressive wouldn'treimburse was "necessary to properly repair every conceivabledamaged vehicle," as the Eighth District summarized somewhatskeptically, noting that a court agreeing with this wasn't beingfair to Progressive:

"Appellants' theory leaves no room for Progressive to exercise itsright to dispute these facts in this litigation," the court wrote."Because the resolution of these disputes would require a case-by-case analysis of every Progressive repair conducted by everymember of the class, we cannot say that common questions of law orfact predominate over the looming mass of individualized inquiresthat would dominate this litigation."

As noted above, the court didn't rule on the merits of the caseitself, just that it didn't meet its test to be a wider class-action lawsuit. So the plaintiff shops might yet win theirlawsuit based on each repairer's individual history withProgressive. (Or vice versa, Progressive wins based on the factsof claims handled with those shops.)

However, the court's ruling makes it hard to see how repairerswill be able to rate similar class-action status against insurersin Ohio's Eighth District, unless they apparently can point to animproper act applied uniformly that somehow affected all bodyshops in a prospective class equally. (That seems like a toughthreshold for any class-action case.)

PROVIDENCE SERVICE: Haverhill Retirement Sys. Suit Remains Stayed-----------------------------------------------------------------The Providence Service Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Reportfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9,2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that theCourt granted an extension of the stay from November 20, 2016until January 20, 2017, in the case Haverhill Retirement System v.Kerley et al., C.A. No. 11149-VCL.

On June 15, 2015, a putative stockholder class action derivativecomplaint was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State ofDelaware (the "Court"), captioned Haverhill Retirement System v.Kerley et al., C.A. No. 11149-VCL.

On October 10, 2016, the Court granted an extension of the stay ofthe proceeding from November 20, 2016 until January 20, 2017,order to allow a special litigation committee, created by theCompany's board of directors, additional time to investigate,review and evaluate the facts, circumstances and claims assertedin or relating to this action and determine the Company's responsethereto. The special litigation committee's review of the facts isongoing.

The Providence Service Corporation is a holding company, whichowns controlling and noncontrolling interests in companies whichprovide critical healthcare and workforce development services.

PTT EXPLORATION: Indonesia Mulls Suit Over Montara Oil Spill------------------------------------------------------------Hans Nicholas Jong, writing for The Jakarta Post, reports that thegovernment is planning to take Thailand-based oil producer PTTExploration and Production (PTTEP) Australasia to court, insupport of a legal fight by a group of Indonesian fishermen whoallegedly suffered from contamination caused by the company'soperations in Timor Sea.

The government plans to file a lawsuit at the Central JakartaDistrict Court to demand the company pay for environmental damageallegedly caused by an oil spill following an explosion at theMontara oil rig in the Timor Sea in 2009.

"We are preparing the lawsuit now. We hope it will be processedas soon as possible in Central Jakarta because we already have allthe documents," maritime security affairs deputy at the Office ofthe Coordinating Maritime Affairs Minister, Arif Havas Oegroseno,told The Jakarta Post on Dec. 6.

Arif, who leads the national team on the 2009 Montara Oil SpillDisaster in the Timor Sea Case Settlement, said the plannedlawsuit was separate from the class action suit by the fishermencurrently being processed in the Australian Federal Court inSydney.

He said, however, the government had no plans to suspend thelicenses or freeze the assets of PTTEP in Indonesia, as reportedby the Post on Dec. 5.

The class action was filed by more than 13,000 Indonesian seaweedfarmers who are seeking more than A$200 million (US$149 million)to cover alleged damages.

Their livelihoods were devastated after the explosion at PTTEP'sMontara oil rig some 690 kilometers west of Darwin and 250 kmsoutheast of Rote Island, East Nusa Tenggara (NTT), which resultedin gas and oil from the rig gushing into the Timor Sea for morethan 70 days.

It is estimated that in excess of 300,000 liters of oil per daycontaminated the sea, equivalent to pouring 10 Olympic-sizedswimming pools of toxic sludge daily into the ocean over themonths the spill continued.

Following the oil spill, fish catches and seaweed harvests in NTTcontinued to decline in the heavily polluted waters. The TimorSea Traditional Fishermen Alliance (Antralamor) said fishermen inNTT saw their incomes slump by 70 percent after the incident.

However, the class action did not represent all people affected bythe oil spill, Arif said.

"Those who filed the class action suit were only seaweed farmers,while other farmers didn't," he said.

Therefore, the government has felt the need to file a separatelawsuit, which will be managed by the Environment and ForestryMinistry and the Attorney General's Office.

"We can't file a lawsuit as a representative of individuals. Wecan sue [the company] on the grounds of environmental damage,"Arif said.

The planned lawsuit was needed as PTTEP had not been cooperativeand had "not shown good faith" in handling the incident, he added.

For instance, PTTEP refused to allocate funding as compensationfrom its corporate social responsibility funding, even though thecompany initially agreed to do so when it had discussions with ajoint independent commission tasked with managing the case.

"[The allocation of the funding] had been agreed as well as thetime and the place in 2012. But the company didn't turn up. SoPTTEP has not shown good faith," Arif said.

Aside from the lawsuit, the government has also called onAustralia to help find a solution to the oil spill.

Coordinating Minister for Maritime Affairs Luhut Pandjaitan toldFairfax Media that after seven years there was still no resolutionfor those affected by the worst oil spill in the history ofAustralia's offshore petroleum fields. "There is no solution sofar and the victims are fishermen in the area. Australia shouldhelp out as well to solve this problem," he said as quoted by TheSydney Morning Herald.

RADIANT LOGISTICS: Status Conference in "Barahona" Suit Continued-----------------------------------------------------------------Radiant Logistics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016, forthe quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that in the case,Ingrid Barahona v. Accountabilities, Inc. d/b/a/ AccountabilitiesStaffing, Inc., Radiant Global Logistics, Inc. and DBADistribution Services, Inc. (Ingrid Barahona California ClassAction), a status conference has since been continued untilDecember 28, 2016 so the parties can attempt to obtain thenecessary documents.

On October 25, 2013, plaintiff Ingrid Barahona filed a purportedclass action lawsuit against RGL, DBA Distribution Services, Inc.("DBA"), and two third-party staffing companies (collectively, the"Staffing Defendants") with whom Radiant and DBA contracted fortemporary employees. In the lawsuit, Ms. Barahona, on behalf ofherself and the putative class, seeks damages and penalties underCalifornia law, plus interest, attorneys' fees, and costs, alongwith equitable remedies, alleging that she and the putative classwere the subject of unfair and unlawful business practices,including certain wage and hour violations relating to, amongothers, failure to provide meal and rest periods, failure to payminimum wages and overtime, and failure to reimburse employees forwork-related expenses. Ms. Barahona alleges that she was jointlyemployed by the staffing companies and Radiant and DBA.

Radiant and DBA deny Ms. Barahona's allegations in their entirety,deny that they are liable to Ms. Barahona or the putative classmembers in any way, and are vigorously defending against theseallegations based upon a preliminary evaluation of applicablerecords and legal standards.

If Ms. Barahona's allegations were to prevail on all claims theCompany, as well as its co-defendants, could be liable foruninsured damages in an amount that, while not significant whenevaluated against either the Company's assets or current andexpected level of annual earnings, could be material when judgedagainst the Company's earnings in the particular quarter in whichany such damages arose, if at all. However, based upon theCompany's preliminary evaluation of the matter, it does notbelieve it is likely to incur material damages, if at all, since,among others: (i) the amount of any potential damages remainshighly speculative at this stage of the proceedings; (ii) theCompany does not believe as a matter of law it should becharacterized as Ms. Barahona's employer and codefendantAccountabilities admitted to being the employer of record, (iii)any settlement will be properly apportioned between all nameddefendants and Radiant and DBA will not exclusively fund thesettlement; (iv) wage and hour class actions of this naturetypically settle for amounts significantly less than plaintiffs'demands because of the uncertainly with litigation and thedifficulty in taking these types of cases to trial; and (v)Plaintiff has indicated her desire to resolve this matter througha mediated settlement.

Plaintiff admitted in a report to the court that she is unable toprosecute the case because the payroll and personnel records sheneeds are in the possession of Tri-State and/or Accountabilities,and the case has been stayed as to them pending resolution oftheir chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings.

In January 2016, the court held a status conference, which hassince been continued until December 28, 2016 so the parties canattempt to obtain the necessary documents.

DBA and Radiant are attempting to obtain the necessary recordsthrough the Tri-State and Accountabilities' Trustee. At this time,the Company is unable to express an opinion as to the likelyoutcome of the matter.

Radiant Logistics, Inc. operates as a third party logisticscompany, providing multi-modal transportation and logisticsservices primarily in the United States and Canada.

RICO PAN: "De Leon" Lawsuit Seeks to Recoup Wages Under FLSA------------------------------------------------------------MARIA DE LEON, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs.RICO PAN, INC., a Florida corporation and RAFAEL PEREZ,individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-25154-RNS (S.D. Fla.,December 12, 2016), alleges that Defendants have employed severalother similarly situated employees like Plaintiff who have notbeen paid overtime and minimum wages for work performed in excessof 40 hours weekly from the filing of this complaint back threeyears in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

SAINT-GOBAIN: Judge Denies Motion to Remand Two Class Actions-------------------------------------------------------------Donald Frederico, Esq. -- dfrederico@pierceatwood.com -- of PierceAtwood LLP, in an article for JDSupra, reports that on November30th, in Brown v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp., UnitedStates District Judge Joseph Laplante of the District of NewHampshire denied plaintiffs' motion to remand two related classaction lawsuits based on allegations that defendants had caused arelease of toxic chemicals from a manufacturing plant thatcontaminated nearby wells and water supplies. One lawsuit wasbrought on behalf of a putative class of current owners ofresidential properties with private groundwater wells within twomiles of the manufacturing site, and sought damages for thealleged diminished values of their properties. The other lawsuitwas brought on behalf of a putative class of current and formerresidents of such properties, and sought to recover the costs ofmedical monitoring. The defendants are the company that owns theplant and the individual plant manager. They removed the case tofederal court under CAFA, and plaintiffs moved to remand, citingCAFA's local controversy exception.

The local controversy exception requires district courts todecline CAFA jurisdiction where 1) more than two-thirds of themembers of the proposed classes are citizens of the state in whichthe action was originally filed, 2) at least one defendant is acitizen of the forum state from whom significant relief is soughtand whose alleged conduct forms a significant basis for the claimsasserted by the proposed class, and 3) the principal allegedinjuries occurred in the forum state. For the exception to apply,there also must have been no other class actions filed asserting"the same or similar allegations against any of the defendants onbehalf of the same or other persons" during the three year periodbefore the class action in question was filed.

Citing First Circuit precedent, the district court observed thatthe party seeking remand bears the burden of demonstrating by apreponderance of the evidence that the local controversy exceptionapplies. Plaintiffs were unable to satisfy their burden becausefive other putative class actions had been filed against themanufacturer in New York and Vermont within the prior three years.Plaintiffs argued that the cases did not involve "similarallegations" because they did not allege harm in New Hampshire,but the court disagreed, holding that the allegations did not needto be identical. The claims in each of the actions, the courtfound, arose from "effectively the same conduct by [themanufacturer], albeit conduct affecting different plaintiffs anddifferent localities. This renders the factual allegationssufficiently similar to meet this requirement."

This ruling disposed of the motion for remand, but the court, "forthe sake of thoroughness," considered the remaining requirementsof the local controversy exception. The classes in each of thetwo New Hampshire cases differed, and these differences affectedthe court's analysis of certain of the requirements. For example,it found it likely that the class of current property ownerssatisfied the requirement that more than two-thirds of the membersof the proposed class are citizens of New Hampshire, but foundthat plaintiffs had not satisfied their burden of establishingthis element for the medical monitoring class because it includedformer residents of the subject properties.

The court reached similar conclusions with respect to the localdefendant criteria. The local defendant is the plant manager, acitizen of New Hampshire. The claims against the manufacturerdated back to 2000, but the individual defendant did not becomeplant manager until 2012. The court had no difficulty findingthat the plant manager's alleged conduct was a "substantial basis"for the property damage claims of current property owners, but notfor the medical monitoring claims of former residents who movedaway before he became plant manager. For the same reasons, thecourt found that the property damage class sought "significantrelief" from both defendants, but that plaintiffs had notestablished that the medical monitoring class also soughtsignificant relief from him because the class period might havebegun before he became plant manager. In reaching thisconclusion, the court rejected the argument that the "significantrelief" requirement depends on a defendant's ability to pay.Pointing out that courts are split on that issue, the districtjudge concluded that the statute unambiguously focuses on whethersignificant relief is sought from the local defendant, not onwhether the defendant has the capacity to satisfy a judgment.

SID'S SEALANTS: "Holmes" Suit Seeks to Recoup OT Pay Under FLSA---------------------------------------------------------------Eric Holmes On behalf of Himself and all others similarly situatedPlaintiffs v. Sid's Sealants, LLC, Sid ArthurDefendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-00821-slc (W.D. Wis., December 12,2016), seeks redress for Sid's Sealant's alleged failure to payPlaintiff overtime pay, and failure to count some of their worktime as hours worked under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

SIRIUS XM: Settlement May Solidify Position in Digital Music------------------------------------------------------------Mitch Stoltz, writing for Electronic Frontier Foundation, reportsthat Sirius XM Satellite Radio's recent settlement with ex-membersof the 60s rock group The Turtles over royalty payments for oldrecordings has the potential to solidify the dominant position ofbig music services like Sirius XM, at the expense of new musicservices, independent and Web-based radio stations, and thelistening public. If approved by the court, the settlement wouldgive Sirius XM permission to stream a vast catalogue of musicrecordings made before 1972 while other music services and radiostations remain at legal risk.

The litigation campaign by Flo & Eddie, Inc., a company made up offormer members of the 1960's band the Turtles, started three yearsago with class action lawsuits in California, New York, andFlorida. While most creative work in the U.S. is governed by thefederal Copyright Act, sound recordings made before February 15,1972 are left to state laws. And those state laws, created in apre-digital era, were silent about whether they included a "publicperformance" right -- i.e., whether the copyright holder candemand royalties when their songs are played on the radio, or evenkeep them off of the radio altogether.

In general, copyrights on sound recordings in the U.S. don't comewith a public performance right. That's why AM and FM radiostations have never paid or sought permission from artists andrecord labels. There's a limited right that covers "digital audiotransmissions" such as Internet and satellite radio, but even thatright doesn't allow a copyright holder to keep her music off theair. A government body, the Copyright Royalty Board, sets therules and rates for Web and satellite radio.

Pre-1972 recordings fall into a different category, governed by apatchwork of state laws and court decisions. The class actionsuits by Flo & Eddie claimed that Sirius XM and Pandora, two ofthe largest digital music services, had to pay royalties for everyplay of a pre-1972 recording.

EFF has been involved in these suits at every level, filing amicusbriefs to explain some of the pitfalls that could come fromcreating new state copyright law rights. Most recently, EFF fileda brief with the Florida Supreme Court, aided by copyright andappellate specialist Dineen P. Wasylik. Its brief argues that thepurpose of copyright law is to create an incentive for artisticcreation. In the words of the U.S. Constitution, its purpose isto "Promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts." Since statelaw only applies to recordings that are over 45 years old,creating new rights in those recordings wouldn't encourage newrecordings, which are governed by federal law alone.

EFF's brief also pointed out a potential pitfall that would comefrom creating broad new rights through a court case. Mostexpansions of copyright over the past century have come fromCongress (and occasionally from state legislatures). Thoseexpansions are almost always coupled with careful limitations,like the fair use doctrine, and the statutory license that letsInternet radio stations stream a wide variety of music withminimal transaction costs. Courts, by contrast, can only rule onthe facts in front of them, which in these cases involve large,established music services. Creating a new right to controlperformances through a court case means creating a right withoutspecifying what its limitations will be. And a settlement betweenSirius XM and recording artists is likely to be a deal that putsSirius XM in a privileged position, likely paying lower royaltyrates than a smaller competitor could negotiate, and on morefavorable terms.

As it turns out, the parties to these lawsuits didn't even wait tofind out whether California, New York, and Florida law recognizean exclusive right of public performance. On the same day thatEFF submitted its brief in Florida, Flo & Eddie and Sirius XMfiled a settlement proposal with the federal court in California.Under that proposal, Sirius XM will pay pre-1972 copyright holdersa lump sum of $25 to $40 million, and an ongoing royalty of up to5.5% of revenues. The basic question of whether a publicperformance right exists at all remains unanswered, and appeals inall three states are continuing.

The landscape is now more uncertain for music services and radiostations who aren't called Sirius XM. The different states couldstill reach different answers to the question of whether thoseservices must pay royalties for the performance of pre-1972recordings (lower courts have already come down differently ineach state, though the decisions are still up on appeal). If anyof them decide that state law covers those performances, musicservices and radio stations will have to begin the complex processof negotiating terms and royalties -- and that process will likelyinvolve more expensive litigation. Sirius XM, meanwhile, hasalready secured permission to play any pre-1972 recording on itsservice at predictable royalty rates for years to come, giving ita major advantage over new music services.

Another serious problem looms: a lower court ruling in theCalifornia case implies that state copyright law contains none ofthe exceptions and limitations of federal law, including fair use.As EFF explained in an earlier brief, fair use is required by theU.S. Constitution, in order to make copyright law compatible withthe First Amendment. This needs fixing, but if Flo & Eddieprevail in their appeals, the fix may not come quickly.

One solution to this mess is for the various courts to rule thatno state-law right of public performance exists -- in other words,to confirm the assumptions that the entire music industry hasoperated under for decades. Another is for Congress to follow theCopyright Office's recommendation from a 2011 report: place allsound recordings under federal law, regardless of when they weremade.

SNYDER'S-LANCE INC: Considers All Natural Litigation to Be Closed-----------------------------------------------------------------Snyder's-Lance, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2016, for thequarterly period ended October 1, 2016, that the Companydistributed the funds related to the class settlement in the AllNatural litigation and considers that case to be closed.

The Company said: "We have certain class action legal proceedingsfiled against us which allege that certain ingredients in some ofour products that are labeled as "natural" and "all natural" arenot natural. Although we believe that we had strong defensesagainst these claims, we reached a settlement agreement in thethird quarter of 2015 in order to avoid the costs and uncertaintyof litigation. We recognized $2.8 million of expense insettlements of certain litigation in our Condensed ConsolidatedStatements of Income in the first nine months of 2015. Thesettlement amount of $2.8 million is accrued in other payables andaccrued liabilities in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheetsat the end of the third quarter of 2016."

Subsequent to the end of the third quarter of 2016, the Companydistributed the funds related to the class settlement andconsiders the case to be closed; however, a portion of the accruedadministrative fees will be paid in the fourth quarter."

Snyder's-Lance, Inc., a North Carolina corporation, is in thesnack food industry. The Company manufactures, markets, anddistributes a variety of snack foods. The Company's productsinclude sandwich crackers, cookies, restaurant crackers and breadbasket items, candy, chips, meat snacks, nuts, and cake items.The Company's products are sold under its own brand names, privatelabels, and third party brands.

SNYDER'S-LANCE INC: Defends Class Suit by IBOs in Tennessee-----------------------------------------------------------Snyder's-Lance, Inc., is defending itself against a putative classaction lawsuit brought by independent business owners inTennessee, according to the Company's November 8, 2016, Form 10-Qfiling with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for thequarter ended October 1, 2016.

The Company said: "On July 25, 2016, plaintiffs comprised of IBOsfiled a putative class action against Snyder's-Lance, Inc. and ourdistribution subsidiary, S-L Distribution Company, Inc. in theEastern District Court of Tennessee. The case was transferred tothe Middle District of Pennsylvania. The lawsuit seeks statewideclass certification on behalf of a class comprised of IBOs inTennessee, and nationwide certification for the Federal lawcollective action. The plaintiffs allege that they weremisclassified as independent contractors and should be consideredemployees."

"We believe we have strong defenses to all the claims that havebeen asserted against us. We cannot reasonably estimate at thistime the possible loss or range of loss, if any, from thislawsuit."

Snyder's-Lance, Inc., a North Carolina corporation, is in thesnack food industry. The Company manufactures, markets, anddistributes a variety of snack foods. The Company's productsinclude sandwich crackers, cookies, restaurant crackers and breadbasket items, candy, chips, meat snacks, nuts, and cake items.The Company's products are sold under its own brand names, privatelabels, and third party brands.

SNYDER'S-LANCE INC: Defends Two Suits Over Diamond Foods Deal-------------------------------------------------------------Snyder's-Lance, Inc., is defending two lawsuits arising from itsacquisition of Diamond Foods, Inc., the Company said in its Form10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November8, 2016, for the quarterly period ended October 1, 2016.

On October 27, 2015, the Company entered into an Agreement andPlan of Merger and Reorganization with Diamond Foods, Inc.Diamond was a leading snack food company that possessed fivebrands including Kettle Brand(R) potato chips, KETTLE(R) Chips,Pop Secret(R) popcorn, Emerald(R) snack nuts, and Diamond ofCalifornia(R) culinary nuts. The acquisition closed on Feb. 29,2016, and, pursuant to the Merger Agreement, Diamond became theCompany's wholly-owned subsidiary.

On November 10, 2015, a putative class action lawsuit was filed onbehalf of Diamond stockholders in the Court of Chancery of theState of Delaware. The complaint names as defendants Diamond, themembers of Diamond's board of directors, Snyder's-Lance, SharkAcquisition Sub I, Inc., a Delaware corporation and a wholly-ownedsubsidiary of Snyder's-Lance ("Merger Sub I") and SharkAcquisition Sub II, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company anda wholly-owned subsidiary of Snyder's-Lance ("Merger Sub II"). Thecomplaint generally alleges, among other things, that the membersof Diamond's board of directors breached their fiduciary duties toDiamond's stockholders in connection with negotiating, enteringinto and approving the merger agreement with Snyder's-Lance, Inc.The complaint additionally alleges that Snyder's-Lance, Merger SubI and Merger Sub II aided and abetted such breaches of fiduciaryduties. The complaint sought injunctive relief, including theenjoinment of the merger, certain other declaratory and equitablerelief, damages, costs and fees.

An amended complaint was filed on December 21, 2015. The amendedcomplaint adds further allegations related to the merger processand disclosures contained in the Registration Statement on Form S-4 filed by Snyder's-Lance on November 25, 2015. On January 15,2016, plaintiff filed a motion for expedited proceedingsrequesting a preliminary injunction and expedited discovery, whichthe Court denied on February 3, 2016. Plaintiff also filed a booksand records demand case in North Carolina, which the plaintiffsubsequently dismissed with prejudice.

On January 19, 2016, another action was filed in the court ofchancery in the state of Delaware similar to the above matter. OnOctober 24, 2016, plaintiff filed a second amended complaint,which modified some of plaintiff's allegations, including nowexpressly seeking a quasi-appraisal remedy or rescissory damages.The parties also have submitted to the court a proposed schedulefor briefing of anticipated motions to dismiss the amendedcomplaint, which would extend through March 2017.

The Company says it cannot reasonably estimate at this time thepossible loss or range of loss, if any, from this lawsuit.

Snyder's-Lance, Inc., a North Carolina corporation, is in thesnack food industry. The Company manufactures, markets, anddistributes a variety of snack foods. The Company's productsinclude sandwich crackers, cookies, restaurant crackers and breadbasket items, candy, chips, meat snacks, nuts, and cake items.The Company's products are sold under its own brand names, privatelabels, and third party brands.

SNYDER'S-LANCE INC: Settles "Sparks" Suit for $700,000------------------------------------------------------Snyder's-Lance, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2016, for thequarterly period ended October 1, 2016, that it entered into atentative settlement pursuant to which it agreed to pay $0.7million on a class wide basis in the lawsuit filed by PatriciaSparks against its subsidiary, Diamond Foods, Inc.

Former employee Patricia Sparks filed a putative class actionlawsuit against Diamond on November 25, 2015 in San FranciscoSuperior Court alleging Diamond's violation of the CaliforniaLabor Code by failing to include on wage statements the start dateof the pay period and by failing to include on wage statements thename and address of the legal entity that is the employer.Plaintiff amended her complaint on January 4, 2016 to add a claimfor penalties under California's Private Attorneys General Actbased on the same underlying violations. Diamond timely answeredthe First Amended Complaint on March 7, 2016. The partiesattended the initial case management conference on May 2, 2016 anda further case management conference occurred on August 1, 2016.

The Company said, "We accrued $8.3 million associated with thisoutstanding claim in the Diamond opening balance sheet as thatrepresented our best estimate of the probable liability at thattime. We determined such accrual by estimating the aggregatepotential penalties that we believed it was probable could beassessed under the applicable California laws, which are strictliability penalties."

"On September 19, 2016, the parties to this litigation reached atentative settlement pursuant to which we have agreed to pay $0.7million on a class wide basis. We signed a memorandum ofunderstanding reflecting this preliminary settlement amount. Thesettlement is subject to negotiation and execution of a definitivesettlement agreement by the parties and approval by the court. Asresult of the memorandum of understanding, we have recorded ameasurement period adjustment to reduce the opening Balance Sheetaccrual and accordingly accounted for this settlement amount inour Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets for the quarter endedOctober 1, 2016."

Snyder's-Lance, Inc., a North Carolina corporation, is in thesnack food industry. The Company manufactures, markets, anddistributes a variety of snack foods. The Company's productsinclude sandwich crackers, cookies, restaurant crackers and breadbasket items, candy, chips, meat snacks, nuts, and cake items.The Company's products are sold under its own brand names, privatelabels, and third party brands.

SNYDER'S-LANCE INC: Suit Over Evaporated Cane Juice Term Pending----------------------------------------------------------------The lawsuit initiated against Snyder's-Lance, Inc.'s subsidiaryover the use of the term "evaporated cane juice" remains pendingin California, according to the Company's November 8, 2016, Form10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission forthe quarter ended October 1, 2016.

A putative class action suit was filed against Late July Snacks,LLC on September 18, 2013, and is pending in the United StatesDistrict Court for the Northern District of California. The actionaccuses Late July Snacks, LLC of violating federal and state lawby using the term "evaporated cane juice" ("ECJ") in theingredients list on its products' labels. The plaintiffs'complaint alleges ECJ is not the common and usual name for theingredient at issue and is misleading. The complaint attempts tostate claims for violation of California's Unfair Competition Law,California's False Advertising Law, California's Consumers LegalRemedies Act, and unjust enrichment. Late July Snacks, LLC filed amotion to dismiss the complaint on November 27, 2013, based on theprimary jurisdiction doctrine, lack of standing, and failure tostate a claim.

On May 22, 2014, the Court stayed the action, applying thedoctrine of primary jurisdiction, due to the FDA's ongoingconsideration of the issue of using the term ECJ on food labels.On May 26, 2016, the FDA issued its guidance for industry on thetopic. As a result, the stay was lifted on July 22, 2016.Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that, among other things,relies on the FDA's recently issued guidance, on August 31, 2016.

The Company says it cannot reasonably estimate at this time thepossible loss or range of loss, if any, from this lawsuit.

Snyder's-Lance, Inc., a North Carolina corporation, is in thesnack food industry. The Company manufactures, markets, anddistributes a variety of snack foods. The Company's productsinclude sandwich crackers, cookies, restaurant crackers and breadbasket items, candy, chips, meat snacks, nuts, and cake items.The Company's products are sold under its own brand names, privatelabels, and third party brands.

SP AUSNET: Black Saturday Bush Fire Survivors Set to Get Payouts----------------------------------------------------------------Patricia Karvelas, writing for ABC, reports that compensationcheques will soon be arriving in the mail for some of thesurvivors of the 2009 Black Saturday bush fires.

Two separate class actions were launched by law firm MauriceBlackburn against electricity provider SP AusNet and parts of theVictorian Government, following the bushfires in February 2009.Those cases were settled in 2014 and 2015.

Lyn Gunter, former Mayor of Murrindindi and one of the classaction claimants, speaks to RN Drive.

On Nov. 3, Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel granted in part and denied inpart Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, and gave Plaintiff 20 daysfrom the issuance of the Order to file a Second Amended Complaint.Failure to meet the 20-day deadline to file an amended complaintor failure to cure the deficiencies identified in the Order wouldhave resulted to the dismissal of the case with prejudice.

Marriott International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016,for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that inNovember 2015, Starwood announced a malware intrusion had affectedpoint of sale systems at various outlets within certain Legacy-Starwood branded hotels. This resulted in the potential compromiseof credit card data and associated personal information. Theaffected credit card companies are evaluating whether and to whatextent financial penalties should be imposed.

A putative class action arising from the malware intrusion wasfiled against Starwood on January 5, 2016 in the United StatesDistrict Court for the Southern District of California. The namedplaintiff, Paul Dugas, does not specify any damages sought, and amotion to dismiss the case is awaiting resolution by the Court.

Marriott is a worldwide operator, franchisor, and licensor ofhotels and timeshare properties in 120 countries and territoriesunder 30 brand names at the end of the 2016 third quarter.

STEEL DYNAMICS: Bid to Dismiss Indirect Purchasers' Case Underway-----------------------------------------------------------------Steel Dynamics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016, for thequarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Company'smotion to dismiss a lawsuit brought on behalf of a purported classof indirect purchasers of steel products remains pending.

The Company said, "Although, a tentative settlement has beenreached in the case, we have to date been involved, along with twoother remaining non-settling defendant steel manufacturingcompanies, from an original group of eight, in a direct purchaserclass action antitrust suit in federal court in Chicago, Illinois,under the caption of Standard Iron Works v Arcelor Mittal, et al."

"Two other complaints, not yet settled, were brought on behalf ofa purported class of indirect purchasers of steel products withinthe same time period. We have a pending motion to dismiss in thatcase.

"The complaints allege a conspiracy to limit output on the part ofthe defendants, in order to fix, raise, maintain and stabilize theprice at which steel products were sold in the United Statesduring a specified period between 2005 and 2007. The complaintsseek treble damages and costs, including reasonable attorney fees,pre- and post-judgment interest and injunctive relief.

"In September 2015, the Court denied class certification on theissue of antitrust impact and damages, but granted classcertification on the limited issue of the alleged conspiracy.

"In October 2016, we announced that we have entered into anagreement to settle the direct purchaser case for a payment of$4.6 million. Preliminary approval was granted by the court onNovember 3, 2016, and final approval by the Court is also expectedto be forthcoming.

"During the approval process, members of the class will be givenan opportunity to opt-out of the class and retain their ownindividual rights.

"Due to the uncertain nature of litigation, we cannot presentlypredict either the final outcome of the proposed settlementprocess, including whether there may be opt-outs from thesettlement, or the outcome of the remaining indirect purchasercase."

Steel Dynamics, Inc. (SDI), together with its subsidiaries (thecompany), is one of the largest domestic steel producers andmetals recyclers. The company has three reportable segments,consistent with how it manages the business: steel operations,metals recycling operations, and steel fabrication operations.

TAMPA ELECTRIC: Appeal by Insurers in Suit vs. NMGC Dismissed-------------------------------------------------------------An appeal filed by insurance carriers in the lawsuits arising fromgas shortages in New Mexico was dismissed, according to TampaElectric Company's November 8, 2016, Form 10-Q filing with theU.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter endedSeptember 30, 2016.

In February 2011, New Mexico Gas Company, Inc. experienced gasshortages due to weather-related interruptions of electricservice, weather-related problems on the systems of variousinterstate pipelines and in gas fields that are the sources of gassupplied to NMGC, and high weather-driven usage. This gas supplydisruption and high usage resulted in the declaration of systememergencies by NMGC causing involuntary curtailments of gasutility service to approximately 28,700 customers (residential andbusiness).

In March 2011, a customer purporting to represent a classconsisting of all "32,000 [sic] customers" who had their gasutility service curtailed during the early-February systememergencies filed a putative class action lawsuit against NMGC. InMarch 2011, the Town of Bernalillo, New Mexico, purporting torepresent a class consisting of all "New Mexico municipalities andgovernmental entities who have suffered damages as a result of thenatural gas utility shut off" also filed a putative class actionlawsuit against NMGC, four of its officers, and John and Jane Doesat NMGC. In July 2011, the plaintiff in the Bernalillo classaction filed an amended complaint to add an additional plaintiffpurporting to represent a class of all "similarly situated NewMexico private businesses and enterprises."

In September 2015, a settlement was reached with all the namedplaintiff class representatives in both of the class actions. Thesettlements were on an individual basis and not a class basis.

In addition to the two settled class actions described above, 18insurance carriers have filed two subrogation lawsuits for moniespaid to their insureds as a result of the curtailment of naturalgas service in February 2011.

In January 2016, the judge entered summary judgment in favor ofNMGC and all of the subrogation lawsuits were dismissed. Theinsurance carriers subsequently filed a timely appeal of thesummary judgment. In late May 2016, a settlement was reached withall the named plaintiffs in the subrogation lawsuits. A motion todismiss the appeal was granted by the court on Aug. 2, 2016.

The Company says the settlements were not material to the Company.

Tampa Electric Company is the principal subsidiary of TECO Energy,Inc. TECO Energy is an electric and gas utility holding companywith diversified activities.

TAMPA ELECTRIC: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set for Dec.--------------------------------------------------------------Final hearing to consider approval of settlement to resolvelawsuits arising from merger with Emera Inc. is set for December2016, according to Tampa Electric Company's November 8, 2016, Form10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission forthe quarter ended September 30, 2016.

On July 1, 2016, TECO Energy Inc. and Emera Inc. completed theMerger contemplated by the Merger Agreement entered into on Sept.4, 2015. As a result of the Merger, the Merger Sub Company mergedwith and into TECO Energy with TECO Energy continuing as thesurviving corporation and becoming a wholly owned indirectsubsidiary of Emera. Emera is a geographically diverse energy andservices company headquartered in Nova Scotia, Canada

Twelve securities class action lawsuits were filed against thecompany and its directors by holders of TECO Energy securitiesfollowing the announcement of the Emera transaction. Eleven suitswere filed in the Circuit Court for the 13th Judicial Circuit, inand for Hillsborough County, Florida. They alleged that TECOEnergy's board of directors breached its fiduciary duties inagreeing to the Merger Agreement and sought to enjoin the Merger.Several of these suits alleged that one or more of TECO Energy,Emera and an Emera affiliate aided and abetted such allegedbreaches. The securities class action lawsuits were consolidatedper court order. Since the consolidation, two of the complaintswere amended. One of those complaints has added a claim againstthe individual defendants for breach of fiduciary duty todisclose. The twelfth suit was filed in the Middle District ofFlorida Federal Court and has subsequently been voluntarilydismissed.

The company also received two separate shareholder demand lettersfrom purported shareholders of the company. Both of these lettersdemanded that the company maximize shareholder value and removealleged conflicts of interest as well as eliminate allegedlypreclusive deal protection devices. One of the letters alsodemanded that the company refrain from consummating thetransaction with Emera. Both of these demand letters havesubsequently been withdrawn.

In November 2015, the parties to the lawsuits entered into aMemorandum of Understanding with the various shareholderplaintiffs to settle, subject to court approval, all of thepending shareholder lawsuits challenging the proposed Merger. Asa result of the Memorandum of Understanding, the company madeadditional disclosures related to the proposed Merger in a proxysupplement.

In September 2016, a hearing was held to gain preliminary approvalof a negotiated stipulation of settlement. After that hearing, thejudge entered an order granting preliminary approval of the classaction settlement and scheduling a final approval hearing forDecember 2016.

There can be no assurance that the court will grant final approvalof the settlement. However, while the outcome of such proceedingremains uncertain, management does not believe that its ultimateresolution will have a material adverse effect on the company'sresults of operations, financial condition or cash flows.

Tampa Electric Company is the principal subsidiary of TECO Energy,Inc. TECO Energy is an electric and gas utility holding companywith diversified activities.

TENET HEALTHCARE: Sued Over False Medicaid Program Certification----------------------------------------------------------------S.B., on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v.Tenet Healthcare Corporation, Case No. 2016CV283573 (Ga. Super.Ct., December 8, 2016), is an action for damages as a result ofthe Defendant's submission of false certifications to variousstate Medicaid programs for the undocumented immigrant women whowould be eligible for emergency Medicaid services when they gavebirth.

TRACFONE WIRELESS: City of Pickering to Take Part in Class Action-----------------------------------------------------------------Nodaway News Leader reports that the City of Pickering may receivemoney from a class action lawsuit filed in St. Louis againstTracFone Wireless, Inc. to collect business license fees.

The council agreed to pay the attorneys involved five percent ofany money received.

White Cloud engineering did not receive payment in October, so theNovember payment will be twice the normal amount of $350.

A representative from Pickering Christian Church contacted CityClerk Milt Sovereign to say the church will no longer use theparsonage. The property's sewer pump has been pulled and put intoreserve.

According to the amended class action complaint, TrueBlue senttext message "Job Alert" advertisements to Daniel Joseph andothers. Because of the volume of text messages he was receiving,Joseph decided to stop the text messages and texted the word"Stop" to TrueBlue. Joseph received notice that "You haveunsubscribed from [TrueBlue's] job alerts. You will receive nomore messages." However, thereafter TrueBlue allegedly continuedto send text messages to Mr. Joseph.

The case was litigated for nearly two years before the partiesreached a settlement. In September 2015, the Court grantedpreliminary approval of the parties' class action settlementagreement. The agreement provides for a $5 million settlementfund for "all 1,948 individuals identified in [TrueBlue's] recordsthat were sent a job alert text message after a request tounsubscribe to their cellular telephone from the same system thatsent Plaintiff a job alert text message after his unsubscriberequests." TrueBlue also agreed to change its business practiceto stop making or causing to be made automated calls and textsafter stop requests.

On November 21, Mr. Joseph filed a motion for attorneys' fees,costs, and a service award. Specifically, he seeks more than $1.6million in attorneys' fees (or 33% of the common fund), over$14,000 in litigation expenses, and $10,000 as an incentive award.

UNITED DEV'T: Judge Sends Class Action Back to Chancery Court-------------------------------------------------------------Tom McParland, writing for Delaware Business Court Insider,reports that a Delaware federal judge has sent back to theDelaware Court of Chancery a proposed class and derivative actionover an alleged $1 billion "Ponzi-like scheme" at Texas-basedlimited partnership United Development Funding III, finding thatclaims for fiduciary breaches, waste and unjust enrichment calledfor state, and not federal, review.

The plaintiffs, co-trustees of the David C. Fannin RevocableTrust, initially filed suit in the Chancery Court in early July,asserting individual and derivative claims against UDF's brass andeight other companies for self-dealing and self-enrichment in asupposed scheme to misappropriate investor funds.

However, the defendants successfully petitioned to have the casetransferred to the U.S. District Court for the District ofDelaware under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, which givesdistrict courts jurisdiction over putative class actions seekingmore than $5 million in damages.

But on Dec. 2, U.S. District Judge Sue L. Robinson of the Districtof Delaware reversed course and ordered the litigation back tostate court. The complaint, she said, met two narrow carve-outswithin CAFA, known as the internal affairs doctrine and thesecurities exception.

"Because plaintiffs' class action solely involves claims that fallwithin the internal affairs and securities exceptions to CAFA, thecourt concludes that it lacks jurisdiction over the instant actionunder CAFA," Judge Robinson wrote in a 10-page memorandum.

In opposing the remand motion, Judge Robinson said, the defendantshad given an "overly broad" reading to the 130-page complaint andinterpreted the CAFA exceptions as far too narrow.Under the internal affairs doctrine, only one state has authorityto regulate a company's dealings among its current officers,directors and shareholders. And while the plaintiffs' breach offiduciary duty claims may have raised the specter of fraud, theyrelated "solely" to UDF's internal affairs of governance, JudgeRobinson said.

Claims for breach of contract also met the securities exception.Under that exception to the CAFA, state courts are givenjurisdiction of claims related to rights and duties that arecreated pursuant to any security.

In fact, Judge Robinson said, the limited partnership itselfqualified as an investment contract, governed by a partnershipagreement that defined the securities the plaintiffs received inexchange for their investments within the scope of the securitiesexception.

"The partnership agreement expressly retains fiduciary duties andprohibits any contractual limitation or elimination of fiduciaryduties; it is governed by and construed under Delaware law," JudgeRobinson said. "As the court interprets the complaint,plaintiffs' claims pertain solely to the 'relationships inter se'of UDF III's general and limited partners, as those relationshipsare defined by Delaware corporate law and by the partnershipagreement."

The defendants are represented by Steven L. Caponi of K&L Gates.The federal case was captioned Fannin v. UMTH Land Development.The cases, in the Court of Chancery, are captioned Fannin andFannin as Co-Trustees v. UMTH Land Development.

VAALCO ENERGY: Wins Approval of Deal to Dismiss "Butcher" Suit--------------------------------------------------------------The Court of Chancery of the state of Delaware approved astipulation and order of dismissal in the stockholder lawsuitinitiated by Daniel Butcher, VAALCO Energy, Inc. said in its Form10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November8, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016.

On October 3, 2016, the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware(the "Court") approved a Stipulation and Order of Dismissalentered into by the parties in a stockholder class action lawsuitagainst the Company and all of its directors alleging that apreviously terminated shareholder rights agreement, no longer ineffect, and certain provisions of the former CEO's and formerCFO's employment agreements securing change-in-control severancebenefits were invalid under Delaware law, case number C.A. No.12277-VCL, filed on April 29, 2016, in the Court. After theCompany and its directors moved to dismiss the lawsuit, thePlaintiff Daniel Butcher agreed to dismiss the lawsuit as moot,and the Company agreed to settle Plaintiff's application for anaward of attorneys' fees, which it expects its insurer to pay, dueto the anticipated costs of continuing to prosecute the motion todismiss and defending the Plaintiff's fee application, as well asthe litigation risk associated therewith.

VAALCO Energy, Inc., is a Houston-based independent energy companyprincipally engaged in the acquisition, exploration, developmentand production of crude oil and natural gas. As operator, theCompany has production operations and conduct explorationactivities in Gabon, West Africa. As non-operator, the Companyparticipates in exploration and development activities inEquatorial Guinea, West Africa. In the United States, VAALCO isthe operator of two unconventional wells in North Texas and holdsundeveloped leasehold acreage in Montana.

VALHI INC: Suits Arising From Use of Lead Pigments Remain Pending-----------------------------------------------------------------Lawsuits against a subsidiary of Valhi, Inc., alleging injuryarising from use of lead pigments remain pending, according to theCompany's November 8, 2016, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September30, 2016.

NL Industries, Inc.'s former operations included the manufactureof lead pigments for use in paint and lead-based paint. NL, otherformer manufacturers of lead pigments for use in paint and lead-based paint (together, the "former pigment manufacturers"), andthe Lead Industries Association ("LIA"), which discontinuedbusiness operations in 2002, have been named as defendants invarious legal proceedings seeking damages for personal injury,property damage and governmental expenditures allegedly caused bythe use of lead-based paints. Certain of these actions have beenfiled by or on behalf of states, counties, cities or their publichousing authorities and school districts, and certain others havebeen asserted as class actions. These lawsuits seek recovery undera variety of theories, including public and private nuisance,negligent product design, negligent failure to warn, strictliability, breach of warranty, conspiracy/concert of action,aiding and abetting, enterprise liability, market share or riskcontribution liability, intentional tort, fraud andmisrepresentation, violations of state consumer protectionstatutes, supplier negligence and similar claims.

The plaintiffs in these actions generally seek to impose on thedefendants responsibility for lead paint abatement and healthconcerns associated with the use of lead-based paints, includingdamages for personal injury, contribution and/or indemnificationfor medical expenses, medical monitoring expenses and costs foreducational programs. To the extent the plaintiffs seekcompensatory or punitive damages in these actions, such damagesare generally unspecified. In some cases, the damages areunspecified pursuant to the requirements of applicable state law.A number of cases are inactive or have been dismissed orwithdrawn. Most of the remaining cases are in various pre-trialstages. Some are on appeal following dismissal or summary judgmentrulings or a trial verdict in favor of either the defendants orthe plaintiffs.

NL believes that these actions are without merit, and NL intendsto continue to deny all allegations of wrongdoing and liabilityand to defend against all actions vigorously. NL does not believeit is probable that it has incurred any liability with respect toall of the lead pigment litigation cases to which NL is a party,and liability to the Company that may result, if any, in thisregard cannot be reasonably estimated, because:

* no final, non-appealable adverse verdicts have ever been entered against NL, and

* NL has never ultimately been found liable with respect to any such litigation matters, including over 100 cases over a twenty-year period for which NL was previously a party and for which NL has been dismissed without any finding of liability.

Accordingly, the Company says neither the Company nor NL haveaccrued any amounts for any of the pending lead pigment and lead-based paint litigation cases filed by or on behalf of states,counties, cities or their public housing authorities and schooldistricts, or those asserted as class actions. In addition, theCompany has determined that liability to the Company which mayresult, if any, cannot be reasonably estimated because there is noprior history of a loss of this nature on which an estimate couldbe made and there is no substantive information available uponwhich an estimate could be based.

VIRGINIA: Lawmakers Question AG's Role in Asphalt Class Action--------------------------------------------------------------Brad McElhinny, writing for Metro News, reports that lawmakers areasking whether state Attorney General Patrick Morrisey should moreclearly be involved with a class action lawsuit claiming theasphalt for paving West Virginia's roads costs too much because ofmonopolistic practices.

In October, the private firm Bailey & Glasser filed lawsuits onbehalf of Charleston, Parkersburg, Beckley and Bluefield. Acouple of days later, the state Department of Transportationjumped on board the lawsuit.

The Attorney General's office has remained in the background. Theissue came up before last month's election, and Mr. Morrisey saidhe couldn't discuss his office's role because the issue is apending legal matter. "We're prohibited under the law fromdiscussing that," Morrisey said at the time on MetroNews Talkline."We care very deeply about these allegations. They're veryserious."

On Dec. 6, a spokesman for the Attorney General's office made asimilar statement.

"Our office and the Department of Transportation are engaged incooperative discussions to handle this matter appropriately. Thereis no further comment at this time," Attorney General spokesmanCurtis Johnson stated in an emailed response.

Legislators on the Joint Legislative Oversight Commission onDepartment of Transportation Accountability asked Mike Folio,counsel for the DOT, to describe any participation by the AttorneyGeneral's office.

"I've been having discussions with the AG, good positivediscussions -- we're going to work together on this," Mr. Foliosaid.

That answer wasn't specific enough for Delegate Marty Gearheart,chairman of the committee. He asked the Transportation Departmentto prepare a narrative for the next time the committee meets todescribe how and why outside counsel was selected instead of goingwith lawyers from the Attorney General's office.

Folio told legislators that the price of asphalt had been thesubject of his attention since he started his job Jan. 1, 2015. Inresponse to a question about why a small town like Bluefield wouldbe ready to file a lawsuit before the State of West Virginia couldget its own case together, Mr.Folio said the state was nearlyready by November but still needed to complete an analysis.

"We weren't really late," Mr. Folio said.

He was asked if the Attorney General's office turned down a rolein leading the lawsuit.

"I was not involved in those discussions," Mr. Folio responded."I think Mr. Morrisey wants to be involved and he should beinvolved in this action. I've had discussions with him and hisstaff. He has an interest in protecting the taxpayers with thisparticular legal action."

James Bailey, legislative counsel for the committee and noapparent relation to Bailey & Glasser, was asked similar questionsabout the Attorney General's participation.

"I think it's an open question. I wouldn't want to ultimatelystate my opinion," Mr. Bailey said. "There may be something elsethat I'm not aware of. As far as I can see, the Attorney Generalshould be representing."

The government agencies involved in the lawsuit claim competitionamong asphalt suppliers has been suppressed to the point thatthey're paying 40 percent more to pave roads and patch potholesthan they really should.

"The possible damages, which the state would be owed, is alsomassive," Mr. Bailey told the committee.

The lawsuits contend that the asphalt suppliers have engaged inpredatory practices, undercutting and sometimes absorbingcompetitors. The lawsuit names West Virginia Paving as well asseveral asphalt providers that are alleged to be either openly orcovertly related.

"Combined, the defendants are an industry colossus," the lawsuitsclaim.

Senator Mitch Carmichael, R-Jackson and the upcoming Senatepresident, said he is frustrated that a Division of Transportationaudit didn't bring more attention to the possibility of inflatedasphalt prices.

"Is there anything within these bids that raises a red flag?"Carmichael asked.

State Transportation Secretary Paul Mattox said some aspects ofpaving contracts hadn't been adding up -- like a recent trendtoward single bids.

"We first became aware of it when had an analytical group take alook at the bids -- the number of single-bid contracts thedepartment was getting," Mr. Mattox said. "As a result of ourinitial look at our bids, it raised a lot of red flags. Sincethat time, legal division has gathered information to prepare forthis court case."

Mr. Folio said the agency is paying increased attention to what'shappening with paving bids in other surrounding markets.

"We are looking region by region by region, measuring both costand quality," he said.

He said more and more related information is available digitallyand could be subject to comparison.

"You can see patterns of collusion or potential patterns ofcollusion. That's what we are doing from a programmaticstandpoint."

He said his own experience with potholes has led to personalfrustration.

"We are paying too much and we have inferior quality," Mr. Foliosaid.

WALTER INVESTMENT: $24 Million Settlement Has Final Approval------------------------------------------------------------Walter Investment Management Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Reportfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9,2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that aFlorida court has entered an order finally approving the proposedsettlement and dismissing a shareholder class action.

On December 23, 2014, the court granted the defendants' motions todismiss and dismissed the amended complaint without prejudice. OnJanuary 6, 2015, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint. Thesecond amended complaint asserted the same legal claims andalleged that between May 9, 2012 and August 11, 2014 the Companyand the individual defendants made material misstatements oromissions relating to the Company's internal controls overfinancial reporting, the processes and procedures for compliancewith applicable regulatory and legal requirements by DitechFinancial, the liabilities associated with the Company'sacquisition of RMS, and RMS's internal controls. The complaintsought class certification and an unspecified amount of damages onbehalf of all persons who purchased the Company's securitiesbetween May 9, 2012 and August 11, 2014.

On January 23, 2015, all defendants moved to dismiss the secondamended complaint. On June 30, 2015, the court issued a decisionthat granted the motions to dismiss in part and denied the motionsin part. Among other things, the court dismissed the claimsagainst Messrs. O'Brien, Cauthen, Dixon and Helm and the claimsrelating to statements about the Company's acquisition of RMS.

On July 10, 2015, plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint that,among other things, added certain allegations concerning theCompany's settlement with the FTC and CFPB. On July 24, 2015, theCompany and Messrs. Anderson and Corey filed an answer to thethird amended complaint, which denied the substantive allegationsand asserted various defenses.

On August 30, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a motion for classcertification, which the court granted in substantial part onMarch 16, 2016. On April 15, 2016, the parties entered into anagreement to fully resolve all claims that were asserted or couldhave been asserted in the action for a total payment of $24million, which is inclusive of plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and allother costs associated with the proposed settlement.

On June 13, 2016, the court entered an order preliminarilyapproving the proposed settlement and directing that potentialmembers of the class be notified of the proposed settlement. OnOctober 17, 2016, the court entered an order finally approving theproposed settlement and dismissing the action.

In accordance with the settlement agreement, certain insurers ofthe Company have paid the full amount of the settlement into anescrow account. The defendants, including the Company, did notmake any admission of liability or wrongdoing in connection withthe settlement.

WATTS WATER: Still Awaits OK of $14-Mil. Deal in Connector Suits----------------------------------------------------------------Watts Water Technologies, Inc., continues to await approval of $14million settlement to resolve Connector Class Actions, accordingto the Company's November 8, 2016, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended October2, 2016.

In November and December 2014, Watts Water Technologies, Inc. andWatts Regulator Co. were named as defendants in three separateputative nationwide class action complaints (Meyers v. Watts WaterTechnologies, Inc., United States District Court for the SouthernDistrict of Ohio; Ponzo v. Watts Regulator Co., United StatesDistrict Court for the District of Massachusetts; Sharp v. WattsRegulator Co., United States District Court for the District ofMassachusetts) seeking to recover damages and other relief basedon the alleged failure of water heater connectors. On June 26,2015, plaintiffs in the three actions filed a consolidated amendedcomplaint, under the case captioned Ponzo v. Watts Regulator Co.,in the United States District Court for the District ofMassachusetts (hereinafter "Ponzo"). Watts Water Technologies wasvoluntarily dismissed from the Ponzo case. The complaint seeksamong other items, damages in an unspecified amount, replacementcosts, injunctive relief, declaratory relief, and attorneys' feesand costs. On August 7, 2015, the Company filed a motion todismiss the complaint, which motion was temporarily withdrawnpending final approval of the settlement. After initial discoverywas conducted the parties agreed to a mediation of all claims,which resulted in the below-referenced settlement.

In February 2015, Watts Regulator Co. was named as a defendant ina putative nationwide class action complaint (Klug v. Watts WaterTechnologies, Inc., et al., United States District Court for theDistrict of Nebraska) seeking to recover damages and other reliefbased on the alleged failure of the Company's Floodsafe connectors(hereinafter "Klug"). On June 26, 2015, the Company filed apartial motion to dismiss the complaint. In response, on July 17,2015, plaintiff filed an amended complaint which added additionalnamed plaintiffs and sought to correct deficiencies in theoriginal complaint, Klug v. Watts Regulator Co., United StatesDistrict Court for the District of Nebraska. Watts WaterTechnologies, Inc. was dismissed as a defendant. The complaintseeks among other items, damages in an unspecified amount,injunctive relief, declaratory relief, and attorneys' fees andcosts. On October 21, 2015, the Company filed a partial motion todismiss the complaint which was granted in part and denied in parton December 29, 2015. The Company answered the amended complainton February 2, 2016. No formal discovery has yet been conducted.

The Company participated in joint mediation sessions of the Ponzoand Klug cases in December 2015 and January 2016. On February 16,2016, the Company reached an agreement in principle to settle allclaims in both cases. The proposed total settlement amount is $14million, of which the Company is expected to pay approximately$4.1 million after insurance proceeds, of up to $9.9 million. Theparties executed final written settlement agreements in April2016. Motions for preliminary approval of the settlements weresubmitted on May 4, 2016 before the District of Nebraska FederalCourt and are pending with that Court.

The settlement is subject to preliminary court approval and finalcourt approval after a fairness hearing. Accordingly, the Companysays there can be no assurance that the proposed settlements willbe approved in their current form. If the settlements are notapproved, the Company intends to continue to vigorously contestthe allegations in these cases.

During the fourth quarter of 2015, the Company recorded aliability of $14 million related to the Ponzo and Klug matters ofwhich $7.8 million was included in current liabilities and $6.2million in other noncurrent liabilities. In addition, a $9.5million receivable was recorded in current assets related toinsurance proceeds due, based on costs incurred as of December 31,2015, subject to a separate final written settlement agreementthat becomes effective if the class action settlement is approved.

Watts Water Technologies, Inc. is a supplier of products andsolutions that manage and conserve the flow of fluids and energyinto, through and out of buildings in the residential andcommercial markets of the Americas, Europe, Middle East and Africa(EMEA) and Asia-Pacific. For over 140 years, the Company hasdesigned and produced valve systems that safeguard and regulatewater systems, energy efficient heating and hydronic systems,drainage systems and water filtration technology that helpsconserve water.

YAHOO! INC: "Buch" Securities Action Still Pending--------------------------------------------------Yahoo! Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016, for the quarterlyperiod ended September 30, 2016, that the Company continues todefend against the case, Cathy Buch v. David Filo, et al.,

On April 22, 2015, a stockholder action captioned Cathy Buch v.David Filo, et al., was filed in the Delaware Court of Chanceryagainst the Company and certain of its current and formerdirectors. The complaint asserts both derivative claims,purportedly on behalf of Yahoo, and class action claims,purportedly on behalf of the plaintiff and all similarly situatedstockholders, relating to the termination of, and severancepayments made to, our former chief operating officer, Henrique deCastro. The plaintiff claims that certain current and former boardmembers allegedly violated or acquiesced in the violation of theCompany's Bylaws when Mr. de Castro was terminated without cause,and breached fiduciary duties by allowing Yahoo to make allegedlyfalse and misleading statements regarding the value of hisseverance. The plaintiff has also asserted claims against Mr. deCastro. The plaintiff seeks to have the full Board reassess thepropriety of terminating Mr. de Castro without cause, potentiallyleading to disgorgement in favor of the Company of the severancepaid to Mr. de Castro, an equitable accounting, monetary damages,declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and an award of attorneys'fees and costs. The Company and the individual defendants filed amotion to dismiss the action, which the Court denied in part andgranted in part on July 27, 2016.

YAHOO! INC: UCFW Local 1500 Pension Fund Action Still Pending-------------------------------------------------------------Yahoo! Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016, for the quarterlyperiod ended September 30, 2016, that the Company continues todefend against the case, UCFW Local 1500 Pension Fund v. MarissaMayer, et al.

On January 27, 2016, a stockholder action captioned UCFW Local1500 Pension Fund v. Marissa Mayer, et al., was filed in the U.S.District Court for the Northern District of California against theCompany, and certain current and former officers and directors ofthe Company. On April 29, 2016, the plaintiff filed an amendedcomplaint. The amended complaint asserts derivative claims,purportedly on behalf of Yahoo, for violations of the InvestmentCompany Act of 1940, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment,violations of Delaware General Corporation Law Section 124, andviolations of California Business & Professions Code Section17200. The amended complaint seeks to rescind Yahoo's employmentcontracts with the individual defendants because those defendantsallegedly caused Yahoo to illegally operate as an unregisteredinvestment company. The plaintiff seeks disgorgement in favor ofYahoo, rescission, and an award of attorneys' fees and costs. Inaddition, the amended complaint asserts a direct claim againstYahoo for alleged violation of Delaware General Corporation LawSection 124(1), based on the allegation that Yahoo has illegallyoperated as an unregistered investment company. Pursuant to thisclaim, the plaintiff seeks injunctive relief preventing Yahoo fromentering into any future contracts, including any contracts tosell its assets. On October 19, 2016, the District Court dismissedthe amended complaint, with leave to amend.

YAHOO! INC: Faces "Stras" in N.D. Cal. Suit Over Data Breach------------------------------------------------------------Barbara Stras, Individually and on Behalf of All Others SimilarlySituated v. Yahoo! Inc., Case No. 5:16-cv-06990-NC (N.D. Cal.,December 8, 2016), is an action for damages as a result of theDefendant's failure to adequately protect its users' sensitivepersonal information or itself from data breaches.

Yahoo! Inc. is a Delaware corporation that operates a host ofInternet websites and services, including web portal, searchengine and email service, among others.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale orpublication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronicre-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without priorwritten permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed tobe reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered viae-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the samefirm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereofare $25 each. For subscription information, contactPeter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000 or Nina Novak at 202-362-8552.